The idea that you can make a couple of simple changes and lose lots of weight is great for building a money milking industry on top of
Well, actually it was pretty easy for me, and everyone I've recommended this diet to has had similar results - 15-20 lbs dropped in under a month. I myself lost 40 lbs and have kept it off for a year. My weight loss was all without exercise - I didn't want to confound the data, so I avoided all exercise. I also didn't starve myself - I ate whenever I was hungry, and even then was eating 1400-2200 Calories a day. The diet was simply meats, fish, eggs, bacon, cheeses, dairy, some vegetables, minimal low-carb fruits (e.g. berries). For beverages: dry red wine, tea, coffee. Very simple.
I had been taking blood pressure medication for a couple years before this - my highest was 145/95. I eventually had to stop taking the medication - after about 20 lbs weight loss - because I was getting light headed and my blood pressure was dropping too low. Now I'm at normal blood pressure.
After a couple weeks on the diet, you lose all interest in bread and pasta. I don't remember the last time I had a slice of bread, or even bought a loaf of bread.
As for why it's so hard for everyone else to lose weight - all I can say is they're following bad advice. It's kind of disturbing that whether or not you are successful in weight loss can depend on which doctor you happen to have. I have seen doctors recommend the usual AMA/AHA/NIH nonsense about eating low-fat, and I have seen doctors who actually know what they're talking about, know all about the connection between carbohydrate (specifically fructose) ingestion and insulin resistance, ketosis, etc, and make good recommendations.
I have personally gotten both my parents on this diet, and at least three of my friends, and they've all had the same results - minimum 20 lbs dropped in a maximum of a month. Weight loss is actually pretty easy.
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it.
Well, if by "the obesity", you mean the fact that their body fat is a higher percentage of total body mass than normal, I think we all agree that that is not *the cause*. I also didn't make the claim that there is only one cause - there could be multiple.
This should be obvious. There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.
Okay, I replace "expert in the literature", with "understanding the concepts discussed in the literature".
I can't even get to that point, because there are no concepts to understand. Just models with equations and variables. What those variables represent in reality - if anything - has not been determined.
But the science isn't wrong simply because scientific consensus does not strickly imply a connection to reality, as you surreptitiously suggest.
No, I did not suggest that. You're presuming there is "science" - I'm saying there isn't any, not yet at least.
Most of the skeptics arguments are absolute meretricious junk.
Again you're appealing to majority, an obvious fallacy. I don't have to be skeptical of the AGW - there are no concepts of which to be skeptical. I can simply observe that, even if the models fit existing data, they don't necessarily have any predictive value, nor do they necessarily identify or connect to any underlying concepts, in order for them to even be considered scientific.
So if my dichotomy is truly false, then where do you fit into the big picture?
Where I fit into the picture does not determine whether or not your dichotomy is false. I would, however, say I fit into the category I identified in my last post.
scientific consensus is the safest bet you can take
And it is always better to know something on your own, than to pass off the work of knowing to someone else, and assume they are correct in their knowledge.
As long as the group of people comprising the consensus are following the scientific method, consensus does imply a connection to reality.
Unfortunately, because we don't know how reality works in advance, we cannot determine if a given group is accounting for every possible variable and source of uncertainty. So your statement is not necessarily true.
consensus does imply a connection to reality... the current model fits the current data.
That a model "fits the data" does not imply a connection to reality. That is correlation vs. causation. A connection to reality would require predictive value, and for it to be considered science, would ultimately have to lead to the development of underlying concepts.
There's also a pretty solid consensus in the scientific community about the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. And yet, a few "scientists" seem to invent the perpetuum mobile every now and then.
And now you simply have to show why the analogy is relevant.
If these statements are true doesn't that mean we should be even less inclined to release huge quantities of arbitrary chemicals into the atmosphere?
See below for response.
If there really is a total lack theoretical understanding of the way the Earth's climate works, such blind experiments could go horribly wrong and we no real alternative home if they do.
You're implying a common goal for all of humanity. Common goals don't exist. Individuals may share the same goals (by agreed-upon choice or by sheer coincidence), but they remain individual goals. And where individual goals interfere with the goals and values of other individuals, those individuals' rights are violated.
Now, that goes both ways. People can't pollute your property without your permission, and you can't force people to do with their property other than they please.
how many times have we found out years later that product we dumped somewhere was causing all sorts of diseases & cancers?
I didn't dump products anywhere. I'm not sure if you did, but based on your use of "we" I will assume you have. Was it on your own property, or someone else's? Or was it on public property?
Sure, let's return to the 1960s, when companies were dumping raw sewage and industrial waste into lakes, rivers, and streams.
You mean the lakes/rivers/streams that were and still are owned by the government? The same government you want to rely on to protect the environment? You've unwittingly made a strong case for privatization of all property. Had I owned part of the Cuyahoga River, and had someone dumped crap into another part of the river - upstream - I could sue them for polluting my property. When the government owns the entire length of the river, politicians and their political pull determines whether or not that river is allowed to be polluted.
Let's overfish the oceans, because we're hungry right now.
To look only at your present situation, without regard for your life or the lives of your children, would be irrational. Likewise would it be irrational to place the imagined future lives of unborn generations above your life and the lives of your children.
you obviously think that a minority opinion is better than a majority opinion
Free of any context, neither is better or worse than the other. The question is amoral.
Physics would get nowhere if we constantly had to prove the laws of gravity
False analogy. You wouldn't "constantly have to prove" anything. Just explain it and the underlying concepts that the consensus is supposed to agree with. With physics, I can start at a given spot and work backwards, and every step of the way, there are concepts that can potentially be validated or falsified. The problem with climatology is that the models are all there is. There are no underlying concepts. There is no understanding.
... for whom? Jesus? Future unborn generations? Or some other ill-conceived "common goal" contradictory to the goals and values of present, living individuals?
Strings make about as much sense as probabilities considered as physically real, or observer-dependent reality - ie, no sense. The equations might be elegant, but they don't explain anything. "Oh, it's strings!... wait, strings of what? And hold on, they're one-dimensional?!"
Desiring a specific result does not make that result any more real, or coherent. Physics is built on philosophy, not the other way around. Until you understand the underlying concepts, you haven't understood a thing. Of course, it is possible to not understand a thing, get the equations right, and make practical applications from those equations, but progress (in both theory and application) requires a fundamental understanding.
Just 80,000 more government hoops to jump through, and we could one day be allowed to save the lives of our loved ones who in the mean time have died. Thank you, federal government, for saving us from making decisions for ourselves!
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that you can make a couple of simple changes and lose lots of weight is great for building a money milking industry on top of
Well, actually it was pretty easy for me, and everyone I've recommended this diet to has had similar results - 15-20 lbs dropped in under a month. I myself lost 40 lbs and have kept it off for a year. My weight loss was all without exercise - I didn't want to confound the data, so I avoided all exercise. I also didn't starve myself - I ate whenever I was hungry, and even then was eating 1400-2200 Calories a day. The diet was simply meats, fish, eggs, bacon, cheeses, dairy, some vegetables, minimal low-carb fruits (e.g. berries). For beverages: dry red wine, tea, coffee. Very simple.
I had been taking blood pressure medication for a couple years before this - my highest was 145/95. I eventually had to stop taking the medication - after about 20 lbs weight loss - because I was getting light headed and my blood pressure was dropping too low. Now I'm at normal blood pressure.
After a couple weeks on the diet, you lose all interest in bread and pasta. I don't remember the last time I had a slice of bread, or even bought a loaf of bread.
As for why it's so hard for everyone else to lose weight - all I can say is they're following bad advice. It's kind of disturbing that whether or not you are successful in weight loss can depend on which doctor you happen to have. I have seen doctors recommend the usual AMA/AHA/NIH nonsense about eating low-fat, and I have seen doctors who actually know what they're talking about, know all about the connection between carbohydrate (specifically fructose) ingestion and insulin resistance, ketosis, etc, and make good recommendations.
I have personally gotten both my parents on this diet, and at least three of my friends, and they've all had the same results - minimum 20 lbs dropped in a maximum of a month. Weight loss is actually pretty easy.
I don't think it's the obesity as much as the cardiovascular issues that are associated with it.
Well, if by "the obesity", you mean the fact that their body fat is a higher percentage of total body mass than normal, I think we all agree that that is not *the cause*. I also didn't make the claim that there is only one cause - there could be multiple.
It is not obvious to fat people
Agreed, but that is what they get for trusting the AMA/AHA/NIH to provide advice grounded in solid science.
This should be obvious. There is already a clear understanding of the cause of obesity via carbohydrate consumption, combined with the effects of said consumption on the production of advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) in the brain, and their effect on cognitive function.
Oh, this is hilarious. Thank you.
That is simply not true...And neither is that.
Two bald assertions. If you would like to back them up with evidence, feel free.
Stating that you don't have to make an argument against AGW science, because there's no science to argue about is *ABSURD*
It is absurd. That's why I didn't make such a statement.
Okay, I replace "expert in the literature", with "understanding the concepts discussed in the literature".
I can't even get to that point, because there are no concepts to understand. Just models with equations and variables. What those variables represent in reality - if anything - has not been determined.
But the science isn't wrong simply because scientific consensus does not strickly imply a connection to reality, as you surreptitiously suggest.
No, I did not suggest that. You're presuming there is "science" - I'm saying there isn't any, not yet at least.
Most of the skeptics arguments are absolute meretricious junk.
Again you're appealing to majority, an obvious fallacy. I don't have to be skeptical of the AGW - there are no concepts of which to be skeptical. I can simply observe that, even if the models fit existing data, they don't necessarily have any predictive value, nor do they necessarily identify or connect to any underlying concepts, in order for them to even be considered scientific.
So if my dichotomy is truly false, then where do you fit into the big picture?
Where I fit into the picture does not determine whether or not your dichotomy is false. I would, however, say I fit into the category I identified in my last post.
I can observe the existence of concepts in a field, and even understand those concepts - all without being an expert on the literature.
Likewise I can observe the absence of concepts to understand within the field without being an expert on the literature.
scientific consensus is the safest bet you can take
And it is always better to know something on your own, than to pass off the work of knowing to someone else, and assume they are correct in their knowledge.
unless you can explain the method by which you guys are sure your view on the world corresponds directly to the reality of it
Which "view" were you referring to?
Because the people in power have decided to use consensus as a means of judging truth.
As long as the group of people comprising the consensus are following the scientific method, consensus does imply a connection to reality.
Unfortunately, because we don't know how reality works in advance, we cannot determine if a given group is accounting for every possible variable and source of uncertainty. So your statement is not necessarily true.
consensus does imply a connection to reality ... the current model fits the current data.
That a model "fits the data" does not imply a connection to reality. That is correlation vs. causation. A connection to reality would require predictive value, and for it to be considered science, would ultimately have to lead to the development of underlying concepts.
There's also a pretty solid consensus in the scientific community about the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. And yet, a few "scientists" seem to invent the perpetuum mobile every now and then.
And now you simply have to show why the analogy is relevant.
False dichotomy. Try again.
If these statements are true doesn't that mean we should be even less inclined to release huge quantities of arbitrary chemicals into the atmosphere?
See below for response.
If there really is a total lack theoretical understanding of the way the Earth's climate works, such blind experiments could go horribly wrong and we no real alternative home if they do.
You're implying a common goal for all of humanity. Common goals don't exist. Individuals may share the same goals (by agreed-upon choice or by sheer coincidence), but they remain individual goals. And where individual goals interfere with the goals and values of other individuals, those individuals' rights are violated.
Now, that goes both ways. People can't pollute your property without your permission, and you can't force people to do with their property other than they please.
how many times have we found out years later that product we dumped somewhere was causing all sorts of diseases & cancers?
I didn't dump products anywhere. I'm not sure if you did, but based on your use of "we" I will assume you have. Was it on your own property, or someone else's? Or was it on public property?
Sure, let's return to the 1960s, when companies were dumping raw sewage and industrial waste into lakes, rivers, and streams.
You mean the lakes/rivers/streams that were and still are owned by the government? The same government you want to rely on to protect the environment? You've unwittingly made a strong case for privatization of all property. Had I owned part of the Cuyahoga River, and had someone dumped crap into another part of the river - upstream - I could sue them for polluting my property. When the government owns the entire length of the river, politicians and their political pull determines whether or not that river is allowed to be polluted.
Let's overfish the oceans, because we're hungry right now.
To look only at your present situation, without regard for your life or the lives of your children, would be irrational. Likewise would it be irrational to place the imagined future lives of unborn generations above your life and the lives of your children.
you obviously think that a minority opinion is better than a majority opinion
Free of any context, neither is better or worse than the other. The question is amoral.
Physics would get nowhere if we constantly had to prove the laws of gravity
False analogy. You wouldn't "constantly have to prove" anything. Just explain it and the underlying concepts that the consensus is supposed to agree with. With physics, I can start at a given spot and work backwards, and every step of the way, there are concepts that can potentially be validated or falsified. The problem with climatology is that the models are all there is. There are no underlying concepts. There is no understanding.
we should try to "leave no trace behind"
... for whom? Jesus? Future unborn generations? Or some other ill-conceived "common goal" contradictory to the goals and values of present, living individuals?
it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it
Science does not go hand-in-hand with majority opinion - neither does science require consensus, nor does consensus imply any connection to reality.
(since publication of 'An Inconvenient Truth')
Clearly, Al Gore saved the world! ;)
Strings make about as much sense as probabilities considered as physically real, or observer-dependent reality - ie, no sense. The equations might be elegant, but they don't explain anything. "Oh, it's strings!... wait, strings of what? And hold on, they're one-dimensional?!"
Desiring a specific result does not make that result any more real, or coherent. Physics is built on philosophy, not the other way around. Until you understand the underlying concepts, you haven't understood a thing. Of course, it is possible to not understand a thing, get the equations right, and make practical applications from those equations, but progress (in both theory and application) requires a fundamental understanding.
Saturated fat is bad? That's hilarious. So *your own fat* is unhealthy for you. Good job, evolution!
Saturated fat is bad? That's hilarious. So your own fat is bad for you? Good job, evolution!
Just 80,000 more government hoops to jump through, and we could one day be allowed to save the lives of our loved ones who in the mean time have died. Thank you, federal government, for saving us from making decisions for ourselves!