I'm not going to waste my time responding to the studies you link other than to say read the studies themselves rather than the news blurbs. I have read the studies and the methodlogical flaws are readily apparent.
Good Calories Bad Calories is a book by the same author in which he exhaustively deals with the same issues as the article. Some minor differences (e.g. he has come to the conclusion that calories are less important than he thought when he wrote the article, likewise for exercise) but much the same content. The most important thing is that the book is exhaustively documented.
Okay, if you want the real "skinny" on diet, you need to read (or watch the following:
Good Calories, Bad Calories
Great debunking of the low fat myth. Meticulously researched and referenced. Not an easy read.
The Vegetarian Myth
Think eating grains is good for the planet, good for the poor, good for you, moor ethical? Think again. Writer is an ex-vegan who gave it up after it ruined her health.
Fat Head: Movie/dt>
Documentary Response to Supersize Me. Documentator (is that word?) looses weight eating at McDonald's by the simple expedient of drinking diet sodas and skipping the fries.
Protein Power/dt>
My personal favorite of the low-carb diet books, as it offers the most information and doesn't waste my time with recipes I'm not going to cook anyway, etc. But they're all fairly interchangeable.
Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solutions/dt>
Treats type I and Type II diabetes using a low-carb diet (and medication when necessary.) This man was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in the 40's, and is still alive. That's about all that needs to be said about whether his method words.
Since I gave up my vegetarian pretensions and went low-carb mid-June, I've lost 46 lbs. and cured my type 2 diabetes. I can testify from personal experience: this stuff works. Do I miss bread? Sure. Do I miss my diabetes? HELL NO.
Click here to see the spreadsheet where I've been recording my weight loss. I'm never hungry, and haven't been doing more than basic exercise. It's all diet, and it's mighty hard to argue with results.
I know when I was a vegetarian I would have these tremendous cravings for fat. Anecdotally, prisoners who have been released from prisoner of war camps, where they were fed low-fat diets, and were given a feast went straight for pure fats (butter, gravy, that sort of thing) over carbohydrates. Vegans tell stories of "binges" on sour cream, cream cheese, etc. Maybe the rats were craving the fat in the milk?
Why do you assume it's the fat in the pizza and not the carbohydrate? Relatively speaking, Pizza is at least as high in carbohydrate as it is in fat, if not quite a bit higher.
This is typical of the sorts of studies that try to support the low-fat hypothesis. In this case, the problem is that they didn't give sufficient time to adjust to the new diet. It appears that the rats were only given 4 days to adjust to the high-fat diet, compared with weeks on the low-fat diet. The problem is that when the body switches from burning carbohydrates to fats, the fuel the brain uses changes from glucose to ketone bodies. As anyone who has tried a low-carb diet can tell you, for the first several days (a week or two for some people--no idea what it would be for rats) you feel rather dull and drained for several days. Then one day the "brain fairy" arrives and you have more energy, physically and mentally, than you've had in years.
I spent years as a near-vegetarian on a very low-fat diet and what it got me was literally 200 lbs. overweight and type 2 diabetes. I've now lost 46 lbs. on a low carb diet getting about 60% of my calories from FAT, my type 2 diabetes is basically cured, and I feel better than I've felt in at least ten years. My lipid profile has also improved dramatically.
Every study done thus far looking at low-carb vs. low-fat has shown that low-fat is a failure (read the studies, not just the blurbs or the conclusions). Think about it... over the past 20 years, Americans have reduced their fat intake by 25% and type 2 diabetes has increased by 1000%, heart disease has become MORE prevalent, strokes have become MORE prevalent. The Low Fat experiment is a failure. And make sure to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.
As I understand it, isn't the justice department required to act in defense of any law that is being constitutionally challenged? This is just the bizarre ethics of the legal profession... truth be damned, give the best defense (of the unconscionable) that you can.
Look people... I don't put the same effort into a Slashdot post that I would put into an article for publication or even a letter. So I misspelled a word or two. Suck it up.
Actually, I just checked, and it turns out I was mistaken. I was under the impression that the ATS accredits non-Christian seminaries, but apparently they do not. My apologies, although I think the underlying point is still valid.
Intelligent design is not based on Biblical literalism at all. Instead it is a philosophical point based on a scientific argument. Now, most scientists have found the argument unconvincing. But to conflate it with creationism per sé shows that you know as little about theology as the use of the word "theologist" does (the word is "theologian".)
Diagnosing my ability (or lack thereof) in New Testament Greek from misspelling an English word is a bit silly, but whatever... for what it's worth, I got nailed by the spell checker. *sigh*
Realistically, neither your nor I get to tell fundamentalists what an appropriate way of training pastors is. I left the Southern Baptist Convention in disgust many years ago for much the reasons you cite and now call myself a "Virginia Baptist" when I have to identify what flavor of Baptist I am. However, the ATS (Association of Theological Schools), which accredits seminaries of ALL kinds, including Jewish, Muslim, and I even think there's a Baha'i seminary now, is of necessity an inclusive body. They can't judge the theological merits of a particular denomination when accrediting a seminary--only the degree to which the training offered is effective towards training someone within those imperatives. That you think the defense of Intelligent Design is foolish is frankly utterly irrelevant, because they don't, and it's their opinion that counts.
Speaking for myself, I don't find many atheists to be theologically "well-versed." I find a lot of atheists to be well-indoctrinated in some particular variant of Christianity (generally either fundamentalism or catholicism), which they've rejected. But to be theologically well-versed requires more than knowing one variant. It requires knowing the broad range of Christian theology, why the different approaches are different, and the history of the church. I can only think of one atheist I've ever met that I would have considered well-versed theologically, and his atheism had an awful lot to do with his parents.
Disclaimer: I'm an ordained minister with a Masters of Divinity (Seminary) and a Ph.D. in New Testament (Public University).
You need to remember that seminarys are strange animals academically. The degree of academic freedom runs the gamete from little (fundamentalist schools) to a great deal (liberal seminaries). However, in almost all there is at least a set of shared convictions that are held by all, or almost all, students and faculty. Even at the most liberal, it's sort of assumed that you at least believe in God, or why are you there? Seminaries are professional schools for training pastors, not academic institutions.
SBTS is part of the "new" SBC, and so is basically fundamentalist in outlook, and virtually all students and faculty will be fundamentalist in outlook. If they weren't, they would have gone somewhere else. It's not unreasonable to assume that most students are going to hold to an ID or Creationist point of view.
Moreover, this course is almost certainly an elective, so no student is required to take it. Even then, speaking as someone who is basically Anabaptist theologically who went to a school where none of the professors were Anabaptist, all my professors were quite flexible. They had no problem with me writing from what one called my "peculiar viewpoint" so long as I did so respectfully and rigorously. I imagine a student that really had a problem for this requirement would be able to get out of it.
Last, Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him), although I don't always agree with him. I rather doubt he would give full credit for "CREATI0N1SM R0X, SUX0RZ!"
Nicotine can also be a potent self-medication for other mental health issues. For example, nicotine (as a stimulant) is often used by those with ADHD to self-medicate.
Isn't this a slippery slope fallacy? I mean, you seem to be arguing that because the condition of pedophilia bears some resemblance to homosexuality, we shouldn't forbid or punish it. The flip side of this argument is that it is equally clear that the victims of pedophilia are harmed by it, often for life (there are an awful lot of people out there who have spent decades trying to get over being sexual used as children by adults.) The problem with pedophilia is that there is a basic power difference between an adult and a child that can never be compensated for--a relationship between an adult and a child is never an equal, healthy relationship.
Of course, this objection doesn't apply to "borderline" cases so much. A 14 year old and a 12 year old, for example, should in my opinion not be considered pedophilia, although it is treated that way in some jurisdictions. I do think that a 12 year old that is sexually active is a danger sign--a sign that there are deeper problems in that child's family that should be looked into.
Simple... every sort of study done has shown that certain sorts of sex offenders (i.e. pedophiles) are basically not "curable." They WILL do it again given the opportunity. Now, the problem as it stands is that these "real" sex offenders are often lumped together with others who don't fall into that category... but that's a separate issue.
He's English. It's late July, early August. He's probably just on "holiday" (it is the custom in most of Europe to take an extended vacation around this time.) Breathe deeply and wait a bit.
I'm no expert on these things, but as I understand it the process of power generation in a power plant is fundamentally more efficient than that undertaken in a car. An internal combustion engine is basically inefficient, as it starts and stops combustion thousands of times a second. Also, it's possible to scrub and sequester the output of stationary power plants, but not of a car. So, while running an electric car off non-renewable energy is not exactly ideal, it's better than nothing.
Okay, I've been there done that... My starting weight was 410 lbs., and after a year I'm at 290. May I suggest you try another approach?
It sounds to me like you may be one of those people who tried to do a "low-fat, low-carb, high-protein" diet. I can tell you from both research and experience that that approach doesn't work, any more than "low-fat, high-carb, low-protein" does. May I suggest a low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein diet? Believe it or not, it won't kill you, your blood lipids will improve, and you may find that it's surprisingly easy to lose weight. Fat is the key to satiety.
I can't go into all the science here, but take a look at "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for an exhaustive discussion.
I'm sorry, but although many doctors will repeat the same things you say, you're simply wrong.
Study after study has shown that the whole "calories in, calories out" notion is not the whole picture. There are some very complex metabolic processes involved which affect both how hungry you are and what your body does with what you eat. And, in the words of Richard Feinman (the well-known biochemist, not to be confused with Richard Feynman, the well-known physicist whom my father was a TA for) "you aren't what you eat, you are what you're body does with what you eat."
The key issue seems to be insulin levels, and the way in which the typical American diet with it's enormous quantities of cheap, processed carbohydrates way over-stimulates insulin production. This in turn stimulates a hormone that causes blood glucose to be stored as body fat, which in turn causes low blood sugar and--you guessed it!--hunger. The "low fat" diet just makes things worse by encouraging over-consumption of carbohydrates, which raise blood sugar and insulin levels.
The solution? Cut back on your carbohydrate intake. You don't need to go to Atkins levels for this to be effective--cutting back to around 100g carbohydrate per day will help, especially if you eliminate all processed fructose (i.e. processed sugars, high-fructose corn syrup, and fruit juices--raw fresh fruit is fine) from your diet. (Beyond the issue of Insulin levels, the process of metabolizing fructose has all kinds of nasty toxic side-effects. Our bodies weren't designed to do it in large quantities.)
I speak from experience here. Three years ago I was diagnosed with type II diabetes, and I spent two years treating it according to the "fat is bad, carbs are good" hypothesis. My diabetes got worse and worse, with my A1c levels approaching 10%, and I was going to have to go on insulin as nothing else was effective. Finally, I got fed up and took charge of my own health, fired the "Certified Diabetes Educator", fired the American Diabetes Association, fired the "calories in, calories out" crowd, and went directly to the medical journals for the newest information. My blood sugars are now normal, I'm off all diabetes medications, my lipid panels are "excellent" (my doctor's words, not mine), I've lost over 120 lbs. in less than a year, and I feel great for the first time since I was in my twenties. And, just for the record, I was never hungry.
There is one caveat. You can't look at this as a "diet"--i.e. you can't see this as a temporary lifestyle change that you will do for a while, lose weight, then go back to your supersize fries. If you do, then you will promptly gain all the weight back and undo all the health benefits, plus 10%. This is the way your body was designed to eat for the rest of your life. This is the way hunter gatherers ate (no, Virginia, hunter-gatherers didn't have sugar cane and wheat fields!) The "diet" attitude is why people who did the low-carb diet craze a few years back will tell you it didn't work.
Of course, the fact that we have the worst global recession in 70 years at the same time as a low in sunspot activity is Entirely Coincidental. Seriously, I haven't studied this in depth, so I don't really know, but it sure seems suspicious, and it's certainly been proposed in the past that the sunspot cycle affected the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the actual studies, not the "conclusions." The actual data show that Low-Carb diets are superior in every respect.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to the studies you link other than to say read the studies themselves rather than the news blurbs. I have read the studies and the methodlogical flaws are readily apparent.
Good Calories Bad Calories is a book by the same author in which he exhaustively deals with the same issues as the article. Some minor differences (e.g. he has come to the conclusion that calories are less important than he thought when he wrote the article, likewise for exercise) but much the same content. The most important thing is that the book is exhaustively documented.
Sorry, miss-pasted the link to share. Here's the right link: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aj5obUUCpzcrdEI3UnRKQ1RPcEpSdUoxem15SkxxbVE&hl=en
Okay, if you want the real "skinny" on diet, you need to read (or watch the following:
Good Calories, Bad Calories Great debunking of the low fat myth. Meticulously researched and referenced. Not an easy read. The Vegetarian Myth Think eating grains is good for the planet, good for the poor, good for you, moor ethical? Think again. Writer is an ex-vegan who gave it up after it ruined her health. Fat Head: Movie/dt> Documentary Response to Supersize Me. Documentator (is that word?) looses weight eating at McDonald's by the simple expedient of drinking diet sodas and skipping the fries. Protein Power/dt> My personal favorite of the low-carb diet books, as it offers the most information and doesn't waste my time with recipes I'm not going to cook anyway, etc. But they're all fairly interchangeable. Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solutions/dt> Treats type I and Type II diabetes using a low-carb diet (and medication when necessary.) This man was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in the 40's, and is still alive. That's about all that needs to be said about whether his method words.Since I gave up my vegetarian pretensions and went low-carb mid-June, I've lost 46 lbs. and cured my type 2 diabetes. I can testify from personal experience: this stuff works. Do I miss bread? Sure. Do I miss my diabetes? HELL NO.
Click here to see the spreadsheet where I've been recording my weight loss. I'm never hungry, and haven't been doing more than basic exercise. It's all diet, and it's mighty hard to argue with results.
Well played sir!
I know when I was a vegetarian I would have these tremendous cravings for fat. Anecdotally, prisoners who have been released from prisoner of war camps, where they were fed low-fat diets, and were given a feast went straight for pure fats (butter, gravy, that sort of thing) over carbohydrates. Vegans tell stories of "binges" on sour cream, cream cheese, etc. Maybe the rats were craving the fat in the milk?
Why do you assume it's the fat in the pizza and not the carbohydrate? Relatively speaking, Pizza is at least as high in carbohydrate as it is in fat, if not quite a bit higher.
This is typical of the sorts of studies that try to support the low-fat hypothesis. In this case, the problem is that they didn't give sufficient time to adjust to the new diet. It appears that the rats were only given 4 days to adjust to the high-fat diet, compared with weeks on the low-fat diet. The problem is that when the body switches from burning carbohydrates to fats, the fuel the brain uses changes from glucose to ketone bodies. As anyone who has tried a low-carb diet can tell you, for the first several days (a week or two for some people--no idea what it would be for rats) you feel rather dull and drained for several days. Then one day the "brain fairy" arrives and you have more energy, physically and mentally, than you've had in years.
I spent years as a near-vegetarian on a very low-fat diet and what it got me was literally 200 lbs. overweight and type 2 diabetes. I've now lost 46 lbs. on a low carb diet getting about 60% of my calories from FAT, my type 2 diabetes is basically cured, and I feel better than I've felt in at least ten years. My lipid profile has also improved dramatically.
Every study done thus far looking at low-carb vs. low-fat has shown that low-fat is a failure (read the studies, not just the blurbs or the conclusions). Think about it... over the past 20 years, Americans have reduced their fat intake by 25% and type 2 diabetes has increased by 1000%, heart disease has become MORE prevalent, strokes have become MORE prevalent. The Low Fat experiment is a failure. And make sure to read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.
As I understand it, isn't the justice department required to act in defense of any law that is being constitutionally challenged? This is just the bizarre ethics of the legal profession... truth be damned, give the best defense (of the unconscionable) that you can.
Look people... I don't put the same effort into a Slashdot post that I would put into an article for publication or even a letter. So I misspelled a word or two. Suck it up.
Certainly, fundamentalists will hijack any train going their way. But let's not chuck the baby with the bathwater?
Actually, I just checked, and it turns out I was mistaken. I was under the impression that the ATS accredits non-Christian seminaries, but apparently they do not. My apologies, although I think the underlying point is still valid.
Intelligent design is not based on Biblical literalism at all. Instead it is a philosophical point based on a scientific argument. Now, most scientists have found the argument unconvincing. But to conflate it with creationism per sé shows that you know as little about theology as the use of the word "theologist" does (the word is "theologian".)
Diagnosing my ability (or lack thereof) in New Testament Greek from misspelling an English word is a bit silly, but whatever... for what it's worth, I got nailed by the spell checker. *sigh*
Realistically, neither your nor I get to tell fundamentalists what an appropriate way of training pastors is. I left the Southern Baptist Convention in disgust many years ago for much the reasons you cite and now call myself a "Virginia Baptist" when I have to identify what flavor of Baptist I am. However, the ATS (Association of Theological Schools), which accredits seminaries of ALL kinds, including Jewish, Muslim, and I even think there's a Baha'i seminary now, is of necessity an inclusive body. They can't judge the theological merits of a particular denomination when accrediting a seminary--only the degree to which the training offered is effective towards training someone within those imperatives. That you think the defense of Intelligent Design is foolish is frankly utterly irrelevant, because they don't, and it's their opinion that counts.
Speaking for myself, I don't find many atheists to be theologically "well-versed." I find a lot of atheists to be well-indoctrinated in some particular variant of Christianity (generally either fundamentalism or catholicism), which they've rejected. But to be theologically well-versed requires more than knowing one variant. It requires knowing the broad range of Christian theology, why the different approaches are different, and the history of the church. I can only think of one atheist I've ever met that I would have considered well-versed theologically, and his atheism had an awful lot to do with his parents.
Disclaimer: I'm an ordained minister with a Masters of Divinity (Seminary) and a Ph.D. in New Testament (Public University).
You need to remember that seminarys are strange animals academically. The degree of academic freedom runs the gamete from little (fundamentalist schools) to a great deal (liberal seminaries). However, in almost all there is at least a set of shared convictions that are held by all, or almost all, students and faculty. Even at the most liberal, it's sort of assumed that you at least believe in God, or why are you there? Seminaries are professional schools for training pastors, not academic institutions.
SBTS is part of the "new" SBC, and so is basically fundamentalist in outlook, and virtually all students and faculty will be fundamentalist in outlook. If they weren't, they would have gone somewhere else. It's not unreasonable to assume that most students are going to hold to an ID or Creationist point of view.
Moreover, this course is almost certainly an elective, so no student is required to take it. Even then, speaking as someone who is basically Anabaptist theologically who went to a school where none of the professors were Anabaptist, all my professors were quite flexible. They had no problem with me writing from what one called my "peculiar viewpoint" so long as I did so respectfully and rigorously. I imagine a student that really had a problem for this requirement would be able to get out of it.
Last, Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him), although I don't always agree with him. I rather doubt he would give full credit for "CREATI0N1SM R0X, SUX0RZ!"
Nicotine can also be a potent self-medication for other mental health issues. For example, nicotine (as a stimulant) is often used by those with ADHD to self-medicate.
Isn't this a slippery slope fallacy? I mean, you seem to be arguing that because the condition of pedophilia bears some resemblance to homosexuality, we shouldn't forbid or punish it. The flip side of this argument is that it is equally clear that the victims of pedophilia are harmed by it, often for life (there are an awful lot of people out there who have spent decades trying to get over being sexual used as children by adults.) The problem with pedophilia is that there is a basic power difference between an adult and a child that can never be compensated for--a relationship between an adult and a child is never an equal, healthy relationship.
Of course, this objection doesn't apply to "borderline" cases so much. A 14 year old and a 12 year old, for example, should in my opinion not be considered pedophilia, although it is treated that way in some jurisdictions. I do think that a 12 year old that is sexually active is a danger sign--a sign that there are deeper problems in that child's family that should be looked into.
Simple... every sort of study done has shown that certain sorts of sex offenders (i.e. pedophiles) are basically not "curable." They WILL do it again given the opportunity. Now, the problem as it stands is that these "real" sex offenders are often lumped together with others who don't fall into that category... but that's a separate issue.
He's English. It's late July, early August. He's probably just on "holiday" (it is the custom in most of Europe to take an extended vacation around this time.) Breathe deeply and wait a bit.
I'm no expert on these things, but as I understand it the process of power generation in a power plant is fundamentally more efficient than that undertaken in a car. An internal combustion engine is basically inefficient, as it starts and stops combustion thousands of times a second. Also, it's possible to scrub and sequester the output of stationary power plants, but not of a car. So, while running an electric car off non-renewable energy is not exactly ideal, it's better than nothing.
Okay, I've been there done that... My starting weight was 410 lbs., and after a year I'm at 290. May I suggest you try another approach?
It sounds to me like you may be one of those people who tried to do a "low-fat, low-carb, high-protein" diet. I can tell you from both research and experience that that approach doesn't work, any more than "low-fat, high-carb, low-protein" does. May I suggest a low-carb, high-fat, moderate-protein diet? Believe it or not, it won't kill you, your blood lipids will improve, and you may find that it's surprisingly easy to lose weight. Fat is the key to satiety.
I can't go into all the science here, but take a look at "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes for an exhaustive discussion.
I'm sorry, but although many doctors will repeat the same things you say, you're simply wrong.
Study after study has shown that the whole "calories in, calories out" notion is not the whole picture. There are some very complex metabolic processes involved which affect both how hungry you are and what your body does with what you eat. And, in the words of Richard Feinman (the well-known biochemist, not to be confused with Richard Feynman, the well-known physicist whom my father was a TA for) "you aren't what you eat, you are what you're body does with what you eat."
The key issue seems to be insulin levels, and the way in which the typical American diet with it's enormous quantities of cheap, processed carbohydrates way over-stimulates insulin production. This in turn stimulates a hormone that causes blood glucose to be stored as body fat, which in turn causes low blood sugar and--you guessed it!--hunger. The "low fat" diet just makes things worse by encouraging over-consumption of carbohydrates, which raise blood sugar and insulin levels.
The solution? Cut back on your carbohydrate intake. You don't need to go to Atkins levels for this to be effective--cutting back to around 100g carbohydrate per day will help, especially if you eliminate all processed fructose (i.e. processed sugars, high-fructose corn syrup, and fruit juices--raw fresh fruit is fine) from your diet. (Beyond the issue of Insulin levels, the process of metabolizing fructose has all kinds of nasty toxic side-effects. Our bodies weren't designed to do it in large quantities.)
I speak from experience here. Three years ago I was diagnosed with type II diabetes, and I spent two years treating it according to the "fat is bad, carbs are good" hypothesis. My diabetes got worse and worse, with my A1c levels approaching 10%, and I was going to have to go on insulin as nothing else was effective. Finally, I got fed up and took charge of my own health, fired the "Certified Diabetes Educator", fired the American Diabetes Association, fired the "calories in, calories out" crowd, and went directly to the medical journals for the newest information. My blood sugars are now normal, I'm off all diabetes medications, my lipid panels are "excellent" (my doctor's words, not mine), I've lost over 120 lbs. in less than a year, and I feel great for the first time since I was in my twenties. And, just for the record, I was never hungry.
There is one caveat. You can't look at this as a "diet"--i.e. you can't see this as a temporary lifestyle change that you will do for a while, lose weight, then go back to your supersize fries. If you do, then you will promptly gain all the weight back and undo all the health benefits, plus 10%. This is the way your body was designed to eat for the rest of your life. This is the way hunter gatherers ate (no, Virginia, hunter-gatherers didn't have sugar cane and wheat fields!) The "diet" attitude is why people who did the low-carb diet craze a few years back will tell you it didn't work.
IBM: It's Better Manually
Of course, the fact that we have the worst global recession in 70 years at the same time as a low in sunspot activity is Entirely Coincidental. Seriously, I haven't studied this in depth, so I don't really know, but it sure seems suspicious, and it's certainly been proposed in the past that the sunspot cycle affected the economy.