Neither the article nor the summary says anything about A/B focus testing. Or mention focus groups at all. It refers to A/B testing, where 2 different websites are offered to customers, and the better one found according to how objectively successful it has been. (by sales, clicks or whatever numerical measure.)
If you're not gaining weight, you're obviously at equilibrium of eating/burning calories. So if you add exercise to that, you will lose weight. How is it not that simple?
That's too mathematical. It assumes that the eating stays constant when you start exercising. Two things might interfere with that: 1) Using energy up in the gym may make one more hungry. Maybe not the instant one comes out of the gym, but later, or the next morning. 2) If one rewards oneself for going to the gym by eating something nice.
Thing is, if you're already at equilibrium, some small change in diet will also have you losing weight. More efficiently.
Try cycling at mixed terrain on a heavy mountainbike and with a backpack for two hours, while keeping an average speed of 20kph
And there we go. You're kind of making my point for me. The average person does not and cannot do 2 hours of hard training per day. The ordinary guy has a job and a family, and other interests. If you do, you're an extreme outlier from the bell curve. And do you, really? Every day rather than once a week? If you do it must be your hobby - 14 hours a week. If that's what you enjoy, good for you.
And even if you do do it, as I said it's massively inefficient. All that hard work for 2 hours, and all you get is meat and potatoes and a sweet.
It's not a rational plan for weight loss.
Cutting the junk food, and eating modest quantities of simple foods is rational. Whether or not you do workouts.
If you were a couch potato and start working out, you will gain a not so modest amount of muscles.
The average person won't. Not without steroids. Sure, they'll be able to tense up a bicep and show some shape there. But in terms of increase in muscle mass over what's already there. There won't be a big enough change to make much difference to how many calories are burned at rest.
Trying to lose weight you'll feel like starving all the time because the food you actually may eat is not really filling.
And you don't get a free pass on that by going to the gym.
120 kkal a day is not much at all.
Did you mean kcal? And what's the significance of 120? The average man burns in the vicinity of 2000-2500 kcal per day.
If you work out, you can eat more food, thus feeling more comfortable.
Not by much. An hour in the gym is going to burn off enough calories for a chocolate bar and a small soda.
You're going to do far better by just not having those snacks in the first place.
Not to speak of other benefits of a workout, like a better working heart, stronger muscles, larger lungs and so on.
I already covered those. Going to the gym is a very good idea. I'm just dispelling the common idea that it'll cause one to lose weight without changing one's diet.
The increased metabolic rate you speak does exist by the way, just not for the rest of the day, maximum for a half an hour or until you eat something. As long as you breathe heavily after a workout or feel your heart beating faster than usual, that's exactly that increased metabolic rate.
So it's another tiny effect, talked up by fitness trainers in gyms. They have to, because otherwise, when people turn the displays on the gym machines to "calories burned", they will realise they've been scammed.
Which will be significant if you're a bodybuilder. However the amount of muscle increase by a non-steroid user will be modest, and won't compensate for any initial fat loss.
But that's not the part I was referring to. It's the myth that when you go to the gym, there will be an increased metabolic rate for the rest of the day that will burn even more calories than you did at the gym. It's not the case.
All in all, it's just not efficient. In general people can't lose weight by going to the gym, they need to change their diet too. Diet is a far bigger factor. The gym is optional, eating less calories is not.
When you are only factoring in the calories burned during exercise, this is true. However, strength training will also raise the basal metabolic rate, so you're burning substantially more calories all the time, not just during your workouts.
This is what fitness instructors have been educated to believe. And they've done a reasonably good job at spreading that message through gym instruction. Recent research doesn't back it up. It was covered on Horizon within the last year.
Yes, these situations happen when 2 damaged people cross paths. The person who has no sense of "I'm full". And the person who has the compulsion to supply the first person with food.
The former seems to be a medical condition. The latter a psychiatric one.
What's wrong with your life that you spend so much time poring out vileness on the internet? Take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. Do you really like what you see?
You're so insular. Why do you imagine X years ago in America is the ideal model for living?
Scandinavians for example have lots of welfare. And they're much more satisfied with life than Americans.
The American dream is a con. You work hard, have few vacations, little public health, and not much of a safety net when things go wrong. And all to enrich the top 1% more than they are already. The other 99% of you are useful idiots.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I suspect nobody will be signing up for your newsletter.
Having a diet big gulp rather than a full sugar big gulp is still going to save you 300+ calories, regardless of what other things you get. If you don't object to the taste of a particular diet soda, why not drink it?
Regarding the taste, it becomes acquired. You don't like it as much at first. But after a while you get used to it, and sugary sodas taste awful.
But these kinds of bans are just retarded, you aren't gonna fix obesity like this, the reason we are fat is because many of us are stuck in jobs sitting on ass in front of PCs all day.
There's just as many people with jobs as keyboard jockeys in Europe, but nothing like the obesity rate. So that's not it.
In the UK, where food and drinks become more like the US, obesity rates are rising faster than the rest of Europe. In continental Europe, where there's more real food and less fast food, and more sensible portion sizes, obesity is not much of a problem.
It's not large sodas specifically, but they are certainly part of the large helpings of junk food problem.
If they want folks to lose weight a few pieces of exercise equipment at work and exercise breaks would do more than this.
No. A Big Gulp contains over 300 calories. That's going to take the best part of an hour to work off on an exercise bike. Very few people are going to average that much exercise per day. Even for people that do an hour at the gym, they don't tend to do it every day.
Exercise builds muscle and stamina, and all round fitness. But it's a very inefficient way of losing weight. Very few people lose weight simply through exercise, it needs to be combined with reduced calorie intake. And reduced calorie intake alone will do it.
You're the one with the partisanship. I just gave a fact to contradict your prior assertion that this was a Democrat and not Republican trait. It's bipartisan.
If there's more Democrat weight behind anti-piracy moves, it's probably that Republicans don't tend to be creative people. They're more likely to consume than create.
Polling like that tends to overrepresent the unemployed and the retired. They are the ones that are out on the streets, or at home during the day, and available to pollsters. Working people tend to be unavailable for polling by pollsters walking around.
Also those with strong opinions will participate heavily while those with mild opinions (even if not neutral) will decline to spend time making these opinions known.
If people decline to spend time making their opinions known, then they don't deserve to have their opinions count. Same as at an election.
So presumably they send out cartographers to check. Or maybe they check on aerial or satellite imagery. Perhaps they prioritise by number of reports. The world is a big place.
There seems to be a trade-off here between speed and accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither the article nor the summary says anything about A/B focus testing. Or mention focus groups at all. It refers to A/B testing, where 2 different websites are offered to customers, and the better one found according to how objectively successful it has been. (by sales, clicks or whatever numerical measure.)
Maybe, given that most sites aren't doing it means it comes under "stuff that matters".
Don't forget the sales pitch. It could help you chose between different text. Real world trials are far better than gut feel on that.
Terminally incompetent. The slashdot website wranglers who made a system that eats up angle brackets when "Plain Old Text is selected as the format.
If you're not gaining weight, you're obviously at equilibrium of eating/burning calories. So if you add exercise to that, you will lose weight. How is it not that simple?
That's too mathematical. It assumes that the eating stays constant when you start exercising. Two things might interfere with that:
1) Using energy up in the gym may make one more hungry. Maybe not the instant one comes out of the gym, but later, or the next morning.
2) If one rewards oneself for going to the gym by eating something nice.
Thing is, if you're already at equilibrium, some small change in diet will also have you losing weight. More efficiently.
Try cycling at mixed terrain on a heavy mountainbike and with a backpack for two hours, while keeping an average speed of 20kph
And there we go. You're kind of making my point for me. The average person does not and cannot do 2 hours of hard training per day. The ordinary guy has a job and a family, and other interests. If you do, you're an extreme outlier from the bell curve. And do you, really? Every day rather than once a week? If you do it must be your hobby - 14 hours a week. If that's what you enjoy, good for you.
And even if you do do it, as I said it's massively inefficient. All that hard work for 2 hours, and all you get is meat and potatoes and a sweet.
It's not a rational plan for weight loss.
Cutting the junk food, and eating modest quantities of simple foods is rational. Whether or not you do workouts.
If you were a couch potato and start working out, you will gain a not so modest amount of muscles.
The average person won't. Not without steroids. Sure, they'll be able to tense up a bicep and show some shape there. But in terms of increase in muscle mass over what's already there. There won't be a big enough change to make much difference to how many calories are burned at rest.
Trying to lose weight you'll feel like starving all the time because the food you actually may eat is not really filling.
And you don't get a free pass on that by going to the gym.
120 kkal a day is not much at all.
Did you mean kcal? And what's the significance of 120? The average man burns in the vicinity of 2000-2500 kcal per day.
If you work out, you can eat more food, thus feeling more comfortable.
Not by much. An hour in the gym is going to burn off enough calories for a chocolate bar and a small soda.
You're going to do far better by just not having those snacks in the first place.
Not to speak of other benefits of a workout, like a better working heart, stronger muscles, larger lungs and so on.
I already covered those. Going to the gym is a very good idea. I'm just dispelling the common idea that it'll cause one to lose weight without changing one's diet.
The increased metabolic rate you speak does exist by the way, just not for the rest of the day, maximum for a half an hour or until you eat something. As long as you breathe heavily after a workout or feel your heart beating faster than usual, that's exactly that increased metabolic rate.
So it's another tiny effect, talked up by fitness trainers in gyms. They have to, because otherwise, when people turn the displays on the gym machines to "calories burned", they will realise they've been scammed.
Which will be significant if you're a bodybuilder. However the amount of muscle increase by a non-steroid user will be modest, and won't compensate for any initial fat loss.
But that's not the part I was referring to. It's the myth that when you go to the gym, there will be an increased metabolic rate for the rest of the day that will burn even more calories than you did at the gym. It's not the case.
All in all, it's just not efficient. In general people can't lose weight by going to the gym, they need to change their diet too. Diet is a far bigger factor. The gym is optional, eating less calories is not.
When you are only factoring in the calories burned during exercise, this is true. However, strength training will also raise the basal metabolic rate, so you're burning substantially more calories all the time, not just during your workouts.
This is what fitness instructors have been educated to believe. And they've done a reasonably good job at spreading that message through gym instruction. Recent research doesn't back it up. It was covered on Horizon within the last year.
Yes, these situations happen when 2 damaged people cross paths. The person who has no sense of "I'm full". And the person who has the compulsion to supply the first person with food.
The former seems to be a medical condition. The latter a psychiatric one.
What's wrong with your life that you spend so much time poring out vileness on the internet? Take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror. Do you really like what you see?
And you were watching Dr Phil because...?
You're so insular. Why do you imagine X years ago in America is the ideal model for living?
Scandinavians for example have lots of welfare. And they're much more satisfied with life than Americans.
The American dream is a con. You work hard, have few vacations, little public health, and not much of a safety net when things go wrong. And all to enrich the top 1% more than they are already. The other 99% of you are useful idiots.
X = Number of jobs in economy.
Y = Population.
Z = Unemployed.
XY (There's a global recession.)
Z = Y-X
If everybody in the country were motivated as hell and tried their best to get a job, there would still be Z unemployed.
And you'd still be an asshole.
Seems like we're trying to circumvent natural selection.....let these people take themselves out of the gene pool....and maybe we'll have fewer stupid people in a couple of generations?
I suspect nobody will be signing up for your newsletter.
Having a diet big gulp rather than a full sugar big gulp is still going to save you 300+ calories, regardless of what other things you get. If you don't object to the taste of a particular diet soda, why not drink it?
Regarding the taste, it becomes acquired. You don't like it as much at first. But after a while you get used to it, and sugary sodas taste awful.
What's your medical problem that you need more than 16 oz of liquid during a movie?
Also I have been a HUGE soda drinker all my life
Average daily intake of which beverage?
But these kinds of bans are just retarded, you aren't gonna fix obesity like this, the reason we are fat is because many of us are stuck in jobs sitting on ass in front of PCs all day.
There's just as many people with jobs as keyboard jockeys in Europe, but nothing like the obesity rate. So that's not it.
In the UK, where food and drinks become more like the US, obesity rates are rising faster than the rest of Europe. In continental Europe, where there's more real food and less fast food, and more sensible portion sizes, obesity is not much of a problem.
It's not large sodas specifically, but they are certainly part of the large helpings of junk food problem.
If they want folks to lose weight a few pieces of exercise equipment at work and exercise breaks would do more than this.
No. A Big Gulp contains over 300 calories. That's going to take the best part of an hour to work off on an exercise bike. Very few people are going to average that much exercise per day. Even for people that do an hour at the gym, they don't tend to do it every day.
Exercise builds muscle and stamina, and all round fitness. But it's a very inefficient way of losing weight. Very few people lose weight simply through exercise, it needs to be combined with reduced calorie intake. And reduced calorie intake alone will do it.
You're the one with the partisanship. I just gave a fact to contradict your prior assertion that this was a Democrat and not Republican trait. It's bipartisan.
If there's more Democrat weight behind anti-piracy moves, it's probably that Republicans don't tend to be creative people. They're more likely to consume than create.
You didn't check very well. The SOPA was introduced by a Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
Polling like that tends to overrepresent the unemployed and the retired. They are the ones that are out on the streets, or at home during the day, and available to pollsters. Working people tend to be unavailable for polling by pollsters walking around.
Also those with strong opinions will participate heavily while those with mild opinions (even if not neutral) will decline to spend time making these opinions known.
If people decline to spend time making their opinions known, then they don't deserve to have their opinions count. Same as at an election.
Some people didn't believe we are entering a post-PC world. Here's evidence.
So presumably they send out cartographers to check. Or maybe they check on aerial or satellite imagery. Perhaps they prioritise by number of reports. The world is a big place.
There seems to be a trade-off here between speed and accuracy.