Thanks, good reading material. I'm apparently fairly inept at searching for medical papers. Good thing I went into programming after my physics degree.:)
Agreed on more review--but of course, now they're coming after sugar. They'll have to pry my cookies from my cold, dead fingers. Which, according to them, will be next Tuesday or something like that.
What you linked to isn't a lab study, it's a thought exercise paper which assumes based on previously conducted study that there is a link, so it is discussing the possible hows and whys. That kind of fits my argument that there is much churning based on the first study, though I'm not going to rule out that there aren't other actual data studies that have also shown the link. I just haven't found one.
That weight gain claim stems from a study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health back in 2008. It was refuted the very next year in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who found all sorts of problems with the study and the conclusions drawn by it.
The glucose intolerance angle could be interesting, and have ramifications, but it was one study. After some more review, and more studies, we might be able to draw some real conclusions, but not right now.
I bet it varies quite a bit from one person to the next. I don't really have a major issue with carbs and satiation. My issue was simply this--I was a skinny ass kid growing up, and trained myself to eat more to be able to get stronger & bigger to compete at the college level in hockey. Mission accomplished, but after college came a desk job, and it turns out it's far easier to turn on a larger appetite than turn it off one you don't need it anymore.
Fast forward almost two decades, and while my vitals are excellent even today, there's no question that staying at that original weight of mine was not likely to end well. It had also become painfully obvious to me that if I planned to continue to play hockey in beer leagues against 20-somethings, I wasn't going to do that in this shape.:)
Decided to go the exercise route first, and surprise--running long distances again drove my appetite way down. Combine a run that chews up about a kcal 3x a week, and significantly less intake, and presto, the weight is coming off. The nice thing here is that this doesn't feel like a diet. I even ended up skipping two weeks of exercise at one point--and while I didn't lose any weight during that time, I also didn't gain any back. That right there is a victory in my book--one that has been elusive for much of the past 20 years.
Good to see you've also found a way that works for you, Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I'm not saying that you're eating crap, literally. I'm saying if you're eating something in unlimited fashion, it has no caloric uptake to your body, and as such, probably pretty limited value to it, too. The point of eating is to consume calories for your body to use for work. Eating stuff that doesn't stick is kind of a waste of effort.:)
If you only eat crap your body doesn't digest, or has next to no calories, congratulations, you can lose lots of weight without portion control. If you eat calorie dense food that your body happily absorbs, carbs or not, with no portion control, then you gain lots of weight. This isn't rocket science, but there is some pretty basic conservation of energy stuff going on here.
I'm not saying you cannot lose weight on a low carb diet. I am saying that if you don't fix the primary issue of ingesting more calories than you exert, you cannot lose weight. Carbs are a calorie dense food, so limiting your intake of them isn't a bad approach, but it's far from the only approach.
Good luck! Running is my choice, mostly because, well, I'm an athlete kind of guy who used to run track. It's great at ripping off weight. However, if you have access to a pool, swimming is even better and way less hard on the joints, but your exercise machine may also get that done for you.
Ah yes, the fad diet advice. Losing weight is fairly scientific--if you ingest more calories than you spend, you gain weight. To lose it, you have to do the other direction. As for energy--I don't have energy issues. People with energy issues don't run fifteen miles a week. Blood pressure and cholesterol? Both were excellent even before I began this program. There isn't much room for them to get better.
I'm not trying to lose weight to be healthy (though it's a nice side benefit)--I'm losing weight and gaining strength to keep up with these 20-somethings in my hockey league.:)
Exactly right. I'm 5'10", and was tipping the scales around 225lbs with a diet and lifestyle like the submitter. Here's what worked for me:
1. Ditched high calorie drinks (soda/juices) and limited snacking. Mornings, I switched to eating a single bowl of cheerios or two shredded wheat biscuits or a banana. Lunch is simple, sandwich, less than 400 cal. Dinner--I rarely eat out, and eating at home I have stopped eating dessert and eat smaller portions at dinner, with no second helpings.
2. Exercise. I run M/W/F for 60 minutes in the morning before work. Tu/Th, I do weigh training (pull ups, push ups, sit ups, other simple stuff), which takes me about 45 minutes. Google Evil Cyber's beginner workout if you want details.
In three months, I've dropped to 207lbs. I'd probably be lighter if I could break myself of *#!*$"&!! cookies, but one needs to be reasonable. My hope is to be below 200 by the end of May, and down to 190 by the end of the summer. You pretty much just have to build on your success, and if you fall off the horse by missing a few days in a row, get back on as soon as you can...but don't beat yourself up about it.
Perhaps you and other commentators should see my earlier replies to the first two commentators.
But for the record, my first game of AD&D was in '79. I may or may not be as old as you, but get the hell off my lawn anyhow.:)
Sorry, didn't read it as a reference, rather an incorrect assertion by the author. Perhaps due to overdosing on perl coding today, dunno. I was an AD&D DM for most of the early to mid 80s and certainly saw no legit references along those lines back then or prior. Didn't pay much attention to the media whores demonizing the game--they could have called it Dragon Lance for all I cared.
As a matter of fact, my parents made me watch Mazes and Monsters with them--and to their credit, they thought the movie was as bad as I thought it was. That was the beginning and end of any Satan Panic in our house, at least up until I went all atheist on them.:)
I have no doubt media commentators may have called it Satan's Game back in the day, but Gygax never referred to his game as such that I'm aware of. Thus, it wasn't originally known as such.
Being yourself is only really good if you're really good.
Trying to be better than yourself is better.
Being yourself is only good if you're really good? Gosh, you're depressing! People should learn and grow. Trying to pass yourself off as perfect won't get you hired on my team. I'm much more interested in capable and curious, rather than perfect and arrogant. They tend to work harder, play nicely with others, and their teams stay productive.
As do I, and I expect it of my developers. You're worthless to me if you're a yes sir boss programmer. It's not like I'm some kind of all-knowing being that really doesn't need your help and will only use you for meaningless peon work.
Now, if you debate just for the sake of debating (i.e., no real content), then yeah, suppressing might be a good course of action for you.
It's easy, and requires no reconfiguration of your brain. Bonus: your current configuration drew you into studying this in school. Chances are, the same configuration is desired by software development managers.
It's funny that "free"creditreport.com is upset that someone else is profiting off their name, when their name is designed to profit off someone else's. I don't think they existed before the US government mandated the credit agencies give you a free copy of your credit report every year (via annualcreditreport.com). "free"creditreport.com doesn't actually give you a credit report for free; you have to enroll in a reporting service to get it.
Wrong. FreeCreditReport.com (and many other competitors) existed long before the government even enacted the legislation to create annualcreditreport.com. By long, I mean several years.
That said, their business model is definitely sleazy. However, you can get your report for free, so long as you remember to cancel that automatic subscription they enroll you for...and which they make it a pain in the posterior to cancel.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that I bring down the average. A lot.
...they upgrade the AIs to be more aggressive, and they start revving the engine next to you at lights? Actually, that'd be amusing as all get out.
Thanks, good reading material. I'm apparently fairly inept at searching for medical papers. Good thing I went into programming after my physics degree. :)
Agreed on more review--but of course, now they're coming after sugar. They'll have to pry my cookies from my cold, dead fingers. Which, according to them, will be next Tuesday or something like that.
What you linked to isn't a lab study, it's a thought exercise paper which assumes based on previously conducted study that there is a link, so it is discussing the possible hows and whys. That kind of fits my argument that there is much churning based on the first study, though I'm not going to rule out that there aren't other actual data studies that have also shown the link. I just haven't found one.
That weight gain claim stems from a study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health back in 2008. It was refuted the very next year in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, who found all sorts of problems with the study and the conclusions drawn by it. The glucose intolerance angle could be interesting, and have ramifications, but it was one study. After some more review, and more studies, we might be able to draw some real conclusions, but not right now.
I bet it varies quite a bit from one person to the next. I don't really have a major issue with carbs and satiation. My issue was simply this--I was a skinny ass kid growing up, and trained myself to eat more to be able to get stronger & bigger to compete at the college level in hockey. Mission accomplished, but after college came a desk job, and it turns out it's far easier to turn on a larger appetite than turn it off one you don't need it anymore.
:)
Fast forward almost two decades, and while my vitals are excellent even today, there's no question that staying at that original weight of mine was not likely to end well. It had also become painfully obvious to me that if I planned to continue to play hockey in beer leagues against 20-somethings, I wasn't going to do that in this shape.
Decided to go the exercise route first, and surprise--running long distances again drove my appetite way down. Combine a run that chews up about a kcal 3x a week, and significantly less intake, and presto, the weight is coming off. The nice thing here is that this doesn't feel like a diet. I even ended up skipping two weeks of exercise at one point--and while I didn't lose any weight during that time, I also didn't gain any back. That right there is a victory in my book--one that has been elusive for much of the past 20 years.
Good to see you've also found a way that works for you, Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I'm not saying that you're eating crap, literally. I'm saying if you're eating something in unlimited fashion, it has no caloric uptake to your body, and as such, probably pretty limited value to it, too. The point of eating is to consume calories for your body to use for work. Eating stuff that doesn't stick is kind of a waste of effort. :)
If you only eat crap your body doesn't digest, or has next to no calories, congratulations, you can lose lots of weight without portion control. If you eat calorie dense food that your body happily absorbs, carbs or not, with no portion control, then you gain lots of weight. This isn't rocket science, but there is some pretty basic conservation of energy stuff going on here.
I'm not saying you cannot lose weight on a low carb diet. I am saying that if you don't fix the primary issue of ingesting more calories than you exert, you cannot lose weight. Carbs are a calorie dense food, so limiting your intake of them isn't a bad approach, but it's far from the only approach.
Good luck! Running is my choice, mostly because, well, I'm an athlete kind of guy who used to run track. It's great at ripping off weight. However, if you have access to a pool, swimming is even better and way less hard on the joints, but your exercise machine may also get that done for you.
Ah yes, the fad diet advice. Losing weight is fairly scientific--if you ingest more calories than you spend, you gain weight. To lose it, you have to do the other direction. As for energy--I don't have energy issues. People with energy issues don't run fifteen miles a week. Blood pressure and cholesterol? Both were excellent even before I began this program. There isn't much room for them to get better. I'm not trying to lose weight to be healthy (though it's a nice side benefit)--I'm losing weight and gaining strength to keep up with these 20-somethings in my hockey league. :)
Exactly right. I'm 5'10", and was tipping the scales around 225lbs with a diet and lifestyle like the submitter. Here's what worked for me:
1. Ditched high calorie drinks (soda/juices) and limited snacking. Mornings, I switched to eating a single bowl of cheerios or two shredded wheat biscuits or a banana. Lunch is simple, sandwich, less than 400 cal. Dinner--I rarely eat out, and eating at home I have stopped eating dessert and eat smaller portions at dinner, with no second helpings.
2. Exercise. I run M/W/F for 60 minutes in the morning before work. Tu/Th, I do weigh training (pull ups, push ups, sit ups, other simple stuff), which takes me about 45 minutes. Google Evil Cyber's beginner workout if you want details.
In three months, I've dropped to 207lbs. I'd probably be lighter if I could break myself of *#!*$"&!! cookies, but one needs to be reasonable. My hope is to be below 200 by the end of May, and down to 190 by the end of the summer. You pretty much just have to build on your success, and if you fall off the horse by missing a few days in a row, get back on as soon as you can...but don't beat yourself up about it.
I've actually heard that one some time ago, but didn't really recall it. Thanks for the refresher!
Perhaps you and other commentators should see my earlier replies to the first two commentators. But for the record, my first game of AD&D was in '79. I may or may not be as old as you, but get the hell off my lawn anyhow. :)
Sorry, didn't read it as a reference, rather an incorrect assertion by the author. Perhaps due to overdosing on perl coding today, dunno. I was an AD&D DM for most of the early to mid 80s and certainly saw no legit references along those lines back then or prior. Didn't pay much attention to the media whores demonizing the game--they could have called it Dragon Lance for all I cared.
As a matter of fact, my parents made me watch Mazes and Monsters with them--and to their credit, they thought the movie was as bad as I thought it was. That was the beginning and end of any Satan Panic in our house, at least up until I went all atheist on them. :)
I have no doubt media commentators may have called it Satan's Game back in the day, but Gygax never referred to his game as such that I'm aware of. Thus, it wasn't originally known as such.
Where the hell (pardon the pun) did "Satan's Game" come from? D&D has always been Dungeons & Dragons since inception. Now get off my lawn!
That won't take long, either. Of course, depending on the interview, gaming the game might be just what they're looking for!
You missed my point as much as I missed yours. We're even.
Nice straw man. Care to show me where I argued against self-improvement, rather than use this poor logical fallacy displayed above?
Being yourself is only really good if you're really good.
Trying to be better than yourself is better.
Being yourself is only good if you're really good? Gosh, you're depressing! People should learn and grow. Trying to pass yourself off as perfect won't get you hired on my team. I'm much more interested in capable and curious, rather than perfect and arrogant. They tend to work harder, play nicely with others, and their teams stay productive.
As do I, and I expect it of my developers. You're worthless to me if you're a yes sir boss programmer. It's not like I'm some kind of all-knowing being that really doesn't need your help and will only use you for meaningless peon work. Now, if you debate just for the sake of debating (i.e., no real content), then yeah, suppressing might be a good course of action for you.
It's easy, and requires no reconfiguration of your brain. Bonus: your current configuration drew you into studying this in school. Chances are, the same configuration is desired by software development managers.
Sincerely,
A Software Development Manager
It's funny that "free"creditreport.com is upset that someone else is profiting off their name, when their name is designed to profit off someone else's. I don't think they existed before the US government mandated the credit agencies give you a free copy of your credit report every year (via annualcreditreport.com). "free"creditreport.com doesn't actually give you a credit report for free; you have to enroll in a reporting service to get it.
Wrong. FreeCreditReport.com (and many other competitors) existed long before the government even enacted the legislation to create annualcreditreport.com. By long, I mean several years. That said, their business model is definitely sleazy. However, you can get your report for free, so long as you remember to cancel that automatic subscription they enroll you for...and which they make it a pain in the posterior to cancel.