If the pre-orders don't count until the 21st, then it is virtually impossible for the iPhone 5, not to outsell the Galaxy SIII over the first 2 weeks. Apple is adding an additional 22 countries on the 28th, where they should see initial release volumes based on pent up demand in those countries.
The marketing aspect of these numbers is truly frustrating. Everyone released their numbers based on different metrics (sold to consumers vs shipped to carriers) and time scales (1st 24-hr, 1st 3-d, 1st 2-wk, etc.). Every platform advocate has something to brag about, as long as they get to pick the topic, but observers are left largely confused.
Do you have a source? I could find no data on 24-hr pre-sale rate for the Galaxy SIII.
I did find the wikipedia page for the Samsung Galaxy S III, which lists 9 million pre-orders from Carriers in the first 2 weeks based on an anonymous Samsung Official. They then compare this to the 4 million pre-sales of the iPhone 4S. I found no citation for the pre-sale rates for iPhone, but the wikipedia page for the iPhone 4S claims 4 million sold (to customers?) in the first 3 days of availability.
Compare that to 2 million in 24-hr for the 5, and I doubt that the iPhone 5 is "way behind the Galaxy S3" as you put it. I think the iPhone 5 is probably doing on par with, or better than the S3. The daily rate of sale will need to drop to something below ((9 million S3 - 2 million 1st day iPhone 5's)/13 days remaining in the 1st two weeks for comparison = 0.538 million/day for the next 13 days to end up below the S3. Now, I don't have any data on how effective first day pre-order sales are at predicting the ultimate sale rate of a device, but suspect that the daily rate of sale is not going to drop by a factor of 4 in such a short period of time.
But I'm not surprised the publishing industry isn't already aware of this
But they ARE aware of it, thus their fight to move from the wholesale model that favors Amazon to the Agency model where they set their own retail prices. The problem (from Apple and the publisher's perspective) is that the regulators (and many here on the forums) are not paying attention to this ultimate end-game, and are only focusing on short term e-book prices and their potential to go down if Amazon is allowed to revert to the wholesale model.
You've obviously never been involved in a negotiation in which you can't afford to walk away, but the other party can.
We are talking about a scenario where Amazon becomes the only game in town. A very real possibility due to Amazon's aggressive loss-leading strategy before the iBookstore forced the agency model on them. If the publishers don't agree to go through Amazon, then they sell e-books to NOBODY. However, if they do pull their e-books from Amazon's store, then Amazon still has lots of other e-books to sell. The majority of books purchased from Amazon are in classes where their is a lot of competition (travel books, How To, etc.), so if one publisher's wares are not available the buyers will simply buy a different publishers book instead.
They don't want to be beholden to a single distributor. If that happens, then Amazon can start more aggressively pushing the wholesale price down. The publishers will have no other retailer to go through, and will be forced to make those concessions to keep their wares listed in the largest (and in the minds of many e-shoppers, only) book seller.
To them, its' not about what they are getting paid today, but about what they are going to be getting paid 5, 10 or 15 years from now. They are resisting being pulled into an endless loop of lower retail prices leads to lower wholesale prices, which leads to lower retail prices and again to further reductions in wholesale prices, et infinitum. In that scenario they end up subsidizing Amazon's success in the long run in exchange for Amazon subsidizing their revenues in the short term.
But the publishers are big enough to not let Amazon push them around
Only if their is a relatively diverse pool of resellers to whom they can sell. The Agency model allowed them to stop Amazon's price spiral precisely because Amazon couldn't force everyone else out via agressive loss-leading. If they are forced to give up the agency model, then they will have little recourse to prevent the eventual bankruptcy of their business (from their perspective at least).
We did, that's why we have the 2 other branches of government, legislative and judicial. There are things you need an executive for, however, and that is why we have a chief executive as well. When Europe was still mostly monarchies, we divided the power between 3 ostensibly separate but equal branches of government. As time has gone on we've seemed to fudge the lines between the branches to an alarming extent, but on paper we have done exactly what you seem to be lamenting the absence of.
One problem is that the voters don't realize that the president is Supposed to be limited in his powers, and they expect him to fix everything for them. Instead, candidates promise the moon and then blame the other branch when he can't deliver when he shouldn't have been promising things he can't deliver on in the first place. No one seems to challenge the candidate on whether his promises are even within his authority to deliver, never mind politically possible to achieve without an absolute majority in the legislative branch. The "I win because I can blame the other party for my failure" political maneuver is poisonous, but as long as we voters keep falling for it they are going to keep using it.
That is Hysterical. He's right though, the term isn't protected. However it doesn't necessarily make it meaningless.
I use the term because I'm not a dietician, which is by definition focused on human nutrition. I'm an animal scientists with a Ph.D. in nutrition from Purdue University. Advanced degrees are requirements for just about any nutrition job in agriculture, so there is no need for a protected job title like dietitian. Unless you've got a MS or PhD in nutrition you are ineligible for most, if not all nutrition positions and if you have the degree then you are considered a nutritionist.
The point he was making with his humor is valid as it pertains to human nutrition. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, and people rarely ask for transcripts when getting nutritional advice.
Yeah, cheese can have a surprising amount of salt. IIRC, it is due to the concentrating effect of the cheese making process. When the whey is squeezed out of the curds to make cheese, much of the salt remains complexed with the curds. When whey is dried down for animal feed or baby formula, most of what remains is the lactose and protein.
Fast food joints get a bad rap for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the food that made them successful (burgers, fries, and a soft drink) are the kind of calorie dense foods that should be eaten sparingly by most people, but taste so good that we tend to over indulge. That is a legitimate concern, and they've modified their menu's in recent years to address the "lack of variety" complaint. However, the over indulgence is OUR fault
Second, there are a lot of people (some well meaning, others with an agenda) who take research about different foods out of context and create campaigns. The Organic movement is one such over reaction, and unfortunately for fast-food joints they fall on the wrong side of that philosophical divide.
Thirdly, there are organizations who are opposed to animal agriculture of any kind, and since McDonalds buys more ground beef than just about anyone, they are a prime target. Being able to affect McD's sales of hamburgers by even 1% has the potential to dramatically effect production and consumption of beef. McD's has responded to these challenges by being as pro-active as possible. They are one of the most active members of the industry for dictating how food is produced, and because of their size, they tend to drag much of the rest of the industry with them.
I'm not advocating for fast food. I avoid it as much as possible because i have a tendency to over indulge just like anyone, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the food they sell. I've never been able to track the quote down again, so I won't try to give numbers, but supposedly a McD's hamburger a week could solve much of the protein and energy deficiency problems in many third world countries. The fat, carbohydrate, and protein are very digestible and in areas where food is scarce a hamburger a week could literally save lives. It's all about context.
I'd suggest a diet rich in high fiber foods. The bulk should make him feel satiated faster without him taking in as many digestible calories as he would with a more digestible meal. The slow energy release of fiber being fermented in the colon would also help to slow the onset of hunger pangs, so he would probably snack less. Also, the more complex the fibers the better. Processed foods with added fiber are ok, but not as good as fresh unprocessed ingredients with a diverse mix of fiber types present. Fruits and Vegetables are great, but not juices or puree's. I know that the USDA recommendations allow for a glass of apple juice to substitute for an apple, but it's the tough fibers in the apple that you want to slow digestion and make you feel full.
Also look at not cooking your food quite so much. I'm not suggesting raw meat or anything, but a medium steak is less digestible than a well done one. Steamed vegetables that are still crisp are less digestible than boiled ones that are mushy, etc.
Essentially if you can't change your activity level, then you need to change your caloric intake while being sure to get all of the other nutrients you need in the correct quantities. Unfortunately, your husband has a slowing metabolism and I assume a history of carrying a little extra weight to contend with. His body wants to stay the size it is and he's probably going to have cravings for higher digestible starchy food. The body doesn't always know what's good for it.
In my Animal Nutrition classes I make it clear that Vitamin C is NOT considered a vitamin in most livestock because only a handful of species lack the capacity to synthesize it. I still get it as an answer on tests though.
Ravenshrike is correct though, the key to that quote is "sufficient quantities". The definition I use in class is as follows:
1. an organic compound of natural food, but distinct from carbohydrate, protein and fat 2. is present in foods in minute amounts 3. is essential for development of normal tissue, as well as for health growth and maintenance. 4. When absent or deficient from the diet, or not properly absorbed/utilized results in a specific deficiency disease or syndrome. 5. Cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by the animal and must be obtained from the diet.
That's a pretty long definition, but that's because vitamins, unlike most other nutrient classifications are not grouped because of similar structure or function, but simply for convenience.
O.K. You apparently have spent enough time on/. to recognize me, but are too much of a coward to actually log in an run the risk of me recognizing you (very unlikely, BTW), because you are citing a post from February.
For the record, I'm both. I have a Ph.D. in animal nutrition. That makes me both an animal scientist and a nutritionist.
Most nutritional research is conducted in animals. A Prof at my old University is studying Phosphorus absorption using Ussing chambers and pig intestines with money from NIH because it has implications for treating people with problems absorbing minerals. When Dr. Dave Baker, a pioneer of nutrition from the University of Illinois, member of the National Academy of Sciences and Animal Nutrition professor died he was honored with a write-up in the Journal of Nutrition. (I was fortunate to have known the man. A friend of mine was his last graduate student. One of the truly great scientists). My current lab is in the process of figuring out the logistics for collaborating on a study with implications for diabetes research (we are trying to figure out the best diet to cause Islet Cells to proliferate in pigs).
And finally, just in case you missed what I was implying by pointing out the overlap between animal scientists nutritionists and human nutrition, Yes. I do believe that the nutritional concepts are the same, even if the goals of the average diet differ.
As a matter of fact, I'm both. I have a Ph.D. in animal nutrition. That makes me both an animal scientist AND a nutritionist.
And to answer your second question "Yes" they do have similar needs. Nutrients are nutrients. The goal in designing a diet for an adult human and a growing animal are different, but the concepts are the same. Where do you think most of our knowledge about nutrition comes from? Research trials in animals.
I can surgically implant a valve into the small intestine of a pig to take samples while investigating amino acid absorption, but human nutrition researchers have an understandably more difficult time trying to get approval from their review board than I do. Therefore, most nutrient transport work is done with livestock and mice.
The elevated risk is associated with eating meats cured with nitrates/nitrites. There's no elevated risk associated with vegetables that contain nitrates.
Shouldn't that mean that the association between nitrates and these health risks is not causational? I mean, if it's nitrates then it's nitrates, right? I know that diets high in nitrates are also highly correlated with other "unhealthy" habits like lack of exercise, smoking, etc.
Fast food restaurants are cheep because of economies of scale, not because they adulterate their meat or cheese. They all have to undergo the same inspections that any other restaurants do, and they buy their meat from the same packing plants as your local supermarket or high end steak house. I'm glad that you are skeptical in the face of FUD, but you seem to have taken at least some of it to heart, unfortunately.
Maybe you are salt sensitive but most people are not. Therefore there isn't anything inherently wrong with the salt content of the bun. Just because SOME people can't eat a thing doesn't make that thing bad for everyone else. I can't eat blue cheese, doesn't make it bad for anyone else.
IIRC, they use unpolished rice. That includes the hulls (husks?) and the fiber content negatively impacts digestibility of the starch. They also tend to eat less and get more exercise. As simple and cliched as it sounds, moderate intake and exercise is the key to weight control. When comparing regional diets people tend to ignore differences in activity level and portion size.
They aren't bad, but they are easier to absorb. Also, unlike too much lipid, too much carbohydrate predisposes one to insulin insensitivity (which can lead to diabetes). Ultimately the quantity of the calories (relative to your caloric expenditure rate) is more important than the source.
As someone who is professionally employed as a nutritionist and has a Ph.D. in the science, I have to say that this:
There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.
is completely meaningless.
There is a lot of FUD being spread around about various types of food, and a lot of misinformation about nutrition in general. Eating at a fast-food joint every day is probably going to be unhealthy depending on what you order, assuming you have a daily caloric expenditure that is close to the 2,000/d that the government bases its recommendations on. However, it is more important that your diet match your activity level, than that you avoid specific foods or food groups. As an illustrative example, Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories/d when training. He is obviously a statistical outlier, but that is partially my point. The maintenance energy requirement for every person is different, and very much dependent upon that persons activity level. Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product. It is when such calorie dense meals are consumed in excess of your calorie expenditure that they start to cause problems.
There are two longitudinal monkey trials on calorie restriction, and they differ in what exactly the CR diet is compared to. One is verses a diet formulated to meet, but not exceed maintenance energy requirement, but the other is versus free-choice (which allows over eating). The first (the one cited above) shows no benefit, but the other shows remarkable benefit. Seems clear to me that it's the over eating that shortens life, not restriction that elongates it, at least in Rhesus monkeys.
Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.
Slashdot Mirror
If the pre-orders don't count until the 21st, then it is virtually impossible for the iPhone 5, not to outsell the Galaxy SIII over the first 2 weeks. Apple is adding an additional 22 countries on the 28th, where they should see initial release volumes based on pent up demand in those countries.
The marketing aspect of these numbers is truly frustrating. Everyone released their numbers based on different metrics (sold to consumers vs shipped to carriers) and time scales (1st 24-hr, 1st 3-d, 1st 2-wk, etc.). Every platform advocate has something to brag about, as long as they get to pick the topic, but observers are left largely confused.
Do you have a source? I could find no data on 24-hr pre-sale rate for the Galaxy SIII.
I did find the wikipedia page for the Samsung Galaxy S III, which lists 9 million pre-orders from Carriers in the first 2 weeks based on an anonymous Samsung Official. They then compare this to the 4 million pre-sales of the iPhone 4S. I found no citation for the pre-sale rates for iPhone, but the wikipedia page for the iPhone 4S claims 4 million sold (to customers?) in the first 3 days of availability.
Compare that to 2 million in 24-hr for the 5, and I doubt that the iPhone 5 is "way behind the Galaxy S3" as you put it. I think the iPhone 5 is probably doing on par with, or better than the S3. The daily rate of sale will need to drop to something below ((9 million S3 - 2 million 1st day iPhone 5's)/13 days remaining in the 1st two weeks for comparison = 0.538 million/day for the next 13 days to end up below the S3. Now, I don't have any data on how effective first day pre-order sales are at predicting the ultimate sale rate of a device, but suspect that the daily rate of sale is not going to drop by a factor of 4 in such a short period of time.
But I'm not surprised the publishing industry isn't already aware of this
But they ARE aware of it, thus their fight to move from the wholesale model that favors Amazon to the Agency model where they set their own retail prices. The problem (from Apple and the publisher's perspective) is that the regulators (and many here on the forums) are not paying attention to this ultimate end-game, and are only focusing on short term e-book prices and their potential to go down if Amazon is allowed to revert to the wholesale model.
You've obviously never been involved in a negotiation in which you can't afford to walk away, but the other party can.
We are talking about a scenario where Amazon becomes the only game in town. A very real possibility due to Amazon's aggressive loss-leading strategy before the iBookstore forced the agency model on them. If the publishers don't agree to go through Amazon, then they sell e-books to NOBODY. However, if they do pull their e-books from Amazon's store, then Amazon still has lots of other e-books to sell. The majority of books purchased from Amazon are in classes where their is a lot of competition (travel books, How To, etc.), so if one publisher's wares are not available the buyers will simply buy a different publishers book instead.
To them, its' not about what they are getting paid today, but about what they are going to be getting paid 5, 10 or 15 years from now. They are resisting being pulled into an endless loop of lower retail prices leads to lower wholesale prices, which leads to lower retail prices and again to further reductions in wholesale prices, et infinitum. In that scenario they end up subsidizing Amazon's success in the long run in exchange for Amazon subsidizing their revenues in the short term.
But the publishers are big enough to not let Amazon push them around
Only if their is a relatively diverse pool of resellers to whom they can sell. The Agency model allowed them to stop Amazon's price spiral precisely because Amazon couldn't force everyone else out via agressive loss-leading. If they are forced to give up the agency model, then they will have little recourse to prevent the eventual bankruptcy of their business (from their perspective at least).
Too bad you posted as AC. You are correct about the congressional majority v deficit spending correlation.
We did, that's why we have the 2 other branches of government, legislative and judicial. There are things you need an executive for, however, and that is why we have a chief executive as well. When Europe was still mostly monarchies, we divided the power between 3 ostensibly separate but equal branches of government. As time has gone on we've seemed to fudge the lines between the branches to an alarming extent, but on paper we have done exactly what you seem to be lamenting the absence of.
One problem is that the voters don't realize that the president is Supposed to be limited in his powers, and they expect him to fix everything for them. Instead, candidates promise the moon and then blame the other branch when he can't deliver when he shouldn't have been promising things he can't deliver on in the first place. No one seems to challenge the candidate on whether his promises are even within his authority to deliver, never mind politically possible to achieve without an absolute majority in the legislative branch. The "I win because I can blame the other party for my failure" political maneuver is poisonous, but as long as we voters keep falling for it they are going to keep using it.
That is Hysterical. He's right though, the term isn't protected. However it doesn't necessarily make it meaningless.
I use the term because I'm not a dietician, which is by definition focused on human nutrition. I'm an animal scientists with a Ph.D. in nutrition from Purdue University. Advanced degrees are requirements for just about any nutrition job in agriculture, so there is no need for a protected job title like dietitian. Unless you've got a MS or PhD in nutrition you are ineligible for most, if not all nutrition positions and if you have the degree then you are considered a nutritionist.
The point he was making with his humor is valid as it pertains to human nutrition. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, and people rarely ask for transcripts when getting nutritional advice.
Yeah, cheese can have a surprising amount of salt. IIRC, it is due to the concentrating effect of the cheese making process. When the whey is squeezed out of the curds to make cheese, much of the salt remains complexed with the curds. When whey is dried down for animal feed or baby formula, most of what remains is the lactose and protein.
Fast food joints get a bad rap for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the food that made them successful (burgers, fries, and a soft drink) are the kind of calorie dense foods that should be eaten sparingly by most people, but taste so good that we tend to over indulge. That is a legitimate concern, and they've modified their menu's in recent years to address the "lack of variety" complaint. However, the over indulgence is OUR fault
Second, there are a lot of people (some well meaning, others with an agenda) who take research about different foods out of context and create campaigns. The Organic movement is one such over reaction, and unfortunately for fast-food joints they fall on the wrong side of that philosophical divide.
Thirdly, there are organizations who are opposed to animal agriculture of any kind, and since McDonalds buys more ground beef than just about anyone, they are a prime target. Being able to affect McD's sales of hamburgers by even 1% has the potential to dramatically effect production and consumption of beef. McD's has responded to these challenges by being as pro-active as possible. They are one of the most active members of the industry for dictating how food is produced, and because of their size, they tend to drag much of the rest of the industry with them.
I'm not advocating for fast food. I avoid it as much as possible because i have a tendency to over indulge just like anyone, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the food they sell. I've never been able to track the quote down again, so I won't try to give numbers, but supposedly a McD's hamburger a week could solve much of the protein and energy deficiency problems in many third world countries. The fat, carbohydrate, and protein are very digestible and in areas where food is scarce a hamburger a week could literally save lives. It's all about context.
I'd suggest a diet rich in high fiber foods. The bulk should make him feel satiated faster without him taking in as many digestible calories as he would with a more digestible meal. The slow energy release of fiber being fermented in the colon would also help to slow the onset of hunger pangs, so he would probably snack less. Also, the more complex the fibers the better. Processed foods with added fiber are ok, but not as good as fresh unprocessed ingredients with a diverse mix of fiber types present. Fruits and Vegetables are great, but not juices or puree's. I know that the USDA recommendations allow for a glass of apple juice to substitute for an apple, but it's the tough fibers in the apple that you want to slow digestion and make you feel full.
Also look at not cooking your food quite so much. I'm not suggesting raw meat or anything, but a medium steak is less digestible than a well done one. Steamed vegetables that are still crisp are less digestible than boiled ones that are mushy, etc.
Essentially if you can't change your activity level, then you need to change your caloric intake while being sure to get all of the other nutrients you need in the correct quantities. Unfortunately, your husband has a slowing metabolism and I assume a history of carrying a little extra weight to contend with. His body wants to stay the size it is and he's probably going to have cravings for higher digestible starchy food. The body doesn't always know what's good for it.
Best. AC. Comment. Ever.
In my Animal Nutrition classes I make it clear that Vitamin C is NOT considered a vitamin in most livestock because only a handful of species lack the capacity to synthesize it. I still get it as an answer on tests though.
Ravenshrike is correct though, the key to that quote is "sufficient quantities". The definition I use in class is as follows:
1. an organic compound of natural food, but distinct from carbohydrate, protein and fat
2. is present in foods in minute amounts
3. is essential for development of normal tissue, as well as for health growth and maintenance.
4. When absent or deficient from the diet, or not properly absorbed/utilized results in a specific deficiency disease or syndrome.
5. Cannot be synthesized in sufficient quantities by the animal and must be obtained from the diet.
That's a pretty long definition, but that's because vitamins, unlike most other nutrient classifications are not grouped because of similar structure or function, but simply for convenience.
O.K. You apparently have spent enough time on /. to recognize me, but are too much of a coward to actually log in an run the risk of me recognizing you (very unlikely, BTW), because you are citing a post from February.
For the record, I'm both. I have a Ph.D. in animal nutrition. That makes me both an animal scientist and a nutritionist.
Most nutritional research is conducted in animals. A Prof at my old University is studying Phosphorus absorption using Ussing chambers and pig intestines with money from NIH because it has implications for treating people with problems absorbing minerals. When Dr. Dave Baker, a pioneer of nutrition from the University of Illinois, member of the National Academy of Sciences and Animal Nutrition professor died he was honored with a write-up in the Journal of Nutrition. (I was fortunate to have known the man. A friend of mine was his last graduate student. One of the truly great scientists). My current lab is in the process of figuring out the logistics for collaborating on a study with implications for diabetes research (we are trying to figure out the best diet to cause Islet Cells to proliferate in pigs).
And finally, just in case you missed what I was implying by pointing out the overlap between animal scientists nutritionists and human nutrition, Yes. I do believe that the nutritional concepts are the same, even if the goals of the average diet differ.
Apparently I did NOT remember correctly. Thanks for the update!
Beg all you like. Put up facts or be quiet.
As a matter of fact, I'm both. I have a Ph.D. in animal nutrition. That makes me both an animal scientist AND a nutritionist.
And to answer your second question "Yes" they do have similar needs. Nutrients are nutrients. The goal in designing a diet for an adult human and a growing animal are different, but the concepts are the same. Where do you think most of our knowledge about nutrition comes from? Research trials in animals.
I can surgically implant a valve into the small intestine of a pig to take samples while investigating amino acid absorption, but human nutrition researchers have an understandably more difficult time trying to get approval from their review board than I do. Therefore, most nutrient transport work is done with livestock and mice.
The elevated risk is associated with eating meats cured with nitrates/nitrites. There's no elevated risk associated with vegetables that contain nitrates.
Shouldn't that mean that the association between nitrates and these health risks is not causational? I mean, if it's nitrates then it's nitrates, right? I know that diets high in nitrates are also highly correlated with other "unhealthy" habits like lack of exercise, smoking, etc.
Fast food restaurants are cheep because of economies of scale, not because they adulterate their meat or cheese. They all have to undergo the same inspections that any other restaurants do, and they buy their meat from the same packing plants as your local supermarket or high end steak house. I'm glad that you are skeptical in the face of FUD, but you seem to have taken at least some of it to heart, unfortunately.
Not necessarily true, it may be that your body doesn't make enough of it at least some of the time.
Maybe you are salt sensitive but most people are not. Therefore there isn't anything inherently wrong with the salt content of the bun. Just because SOME people can't eat a thing doesn't make that thing bad for everyone else. I can't eat blue cheese, doesn't make it bad for anyone else.
IIRC, they use unpolished rice. That includes the hulls (husks?) and the fiber content negatively impacts digestibility of the starch. They also tend to eat less and get more exercise. As simple and cliched as it sounds, moderate intake and exercise is the key to weight control. When comparing regional diets people tend to ignore differences in activity level and portion size.
Thank you for the correction.
They aren't bad, but they are easier to absorb. Also, unlike too much lipid, too much carbohydrate predisposes one to insulin insensitivity (which can lead to diabetes). Ultimately the quantity of the calories (relative to your caloric expenditure rate) is more important than the source.
Most of the fat in cheap ground beef it lost during the cooking process so that even 70% lean beef is only 15-18% fat after cooking
A 1 ounce serving (28g) of Velveeta contains less than 0.01 g of trans fat (the lower threshold for listing)
Most americans are not diabetic
As someone who is professionally employed as a nutritionist and has a Ph.D. in the science, I have to say that this:
There's pretty much something there to sabotage everyone's digestive system and metabolic balance.
is completely meaningless.
There is a lot of FUD being spread around about various types of food, and a lot of misinformation about nutrition in general. Eating at a fast-food joint every day is probably going to be unhealthy depending on what you order, assuming you have a daily caloric expenditure that is close to the 2,000/d that the government bases its recommendations on. However, it is more important that your diet match your activity level, than that you avoid specific foods or food groups. As an illustrative example, Michael Phelps consumes 12,000 calories/d when training. He is obviously a statistical outlier, but that is partially my point. The maintenance energy requirement for every person is different, and very much dependent upon that persons activity level. Their is nothing inherently bad about any of the ingredients in a triple bacon cheeseburger, nor with the final product. It is when such calorie dense meals are consumed in excess of your calorie expenditure that they start to cause problems.
Very True! Wish I had mod points.
There are two longitudinal monkey trials on calorie restriction, and they differ in what exactly the CR diet is compared to. One is verses a diet formulated to meet, but not exceed maintenance energy requirement, but the other is versus free-choice (which allows over eating). The first (the one cited above) shows no benefit, but the other shows remarkable benefit. Seems clear to me that it's the over eating that shortens life, not restriction that elongates it, at least in Rhesus monkeys.
Fat is more energy dense than starch, but it is also more energy intensive to absorb and transport in the body. Starch is absorbed almost energy free, but fat needs to be broken down every time it crosses a membrane and that takes energy. However, I've seen some pretty fat pigs in research trials as a result of feeding 30% fat (oil, lard, choice white grease, etc.) in the diet. So it CAN be done, but who really wants to essentially be drinking bacon grease.
-A Nutritionist