Sure a dead rotting corpse will reduce it's mass. It was presumed that why you say "Eat Less Exercise More", you are not intending for people to injure themselves. Apparently I was wrong since the "Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass" does not have to happen before systems start shutting down.
I didn't say that you said you could exercise indefinitely without any input. You said that it was just conservation of mass and energy, which means that you claim that you can exercise non-stop until the mass and energy required to do so is no longer in your body. That is certainly less than 6 hours. Your claim that it is conservation of mass and energy would also require that large amounts of mass or energy are not leaving your body in a way other than being burned off as energy. Thus no poop.
Claiming that conservation of mass proves a formula, AND that all of the inputs and outputs don't need to be known is hand wavy pseudo-math. Different chemicals will run different machines at different efficiencies with different fuels and produce different quantities of waste.
The human body is an incredibly complex machine with a lot of different components. "Eat Less Exercise More" relies entirely on the idea that all meterial put into that complex machine will run the machine at equal efficiency with equal waste no matter what you put into it.
Using your logic, YOU should be able to do pull ups for 6 hours straight with no rest, as you will still have energy stored in your body. After all, it is just an issue of conservation of energy and mass. And you never poop.
Which is why it is correlation instead of causation. It isn't the coffee that is reducing the accidents and injuries. It is the belief that they drank a stimulant. There just happens to be a very high correlation between people who actually drink coffee and people that believe they are drinking a stimulant.
I don't deny placebo effects and I would say that we agree far more than disagree on this subject.
Stop teasing the guy. Everyone knows it ends with Picard turning on a light, and viewers see Picard in bed, saying, "Honey, you won't believe the dream I just had." to his wife Emily played by Suzanne Pleshette.
I agree that personal enjoyment of job and exercise would need to be factored in, as well as how much or little exercise would make you feel good. The 62 years being a long time is actually an argument in favor of a medical procedure over exercise, as exercise must be spread out over a long time, while work can be bunched into a shorter span with longer sessions.
Either way, exercise is not really 'Free' if your time has any value. Thus it isn't a question of costly procedure or free exercise. It wouldn't likely even be consistant on which is more expensive between people since different people have different earning potentials.
There is no ambiguity. It said "people", it meant "people", and there is no way to interpret it any other way that makes any sense whatsoever. Thinking that they meant states when they said people make no sense at all.
Thinking that it is a 'conservation of energy and mass' issue is a fantasy. Humans are not closed system, and counting only food consumed and energy burned in exercise is not counting all of the inputs and outputs. Saying "conservation of mass" clearly does not imply that you understand it.
2. The evidence suggests that Slashdot editors, while perhaps having some faults, should not take criticism from you on grammar and language clarity seriously.
Not a valid complaint. Just because someone isn't good at a task doesn't mean that they cannot recognize someone else's incompetence. My 8 year old son can point out that the guy running the stop sign is a bad driver. That neither indicates that he is a better driver, nor does it make him wrong. Most tasks take far less skill to identify whether it is done well or not than they do to actually perform well.
The report shows a lower death rate due to injury and accident as well. Unless your implying that the wet floor causing you to slip and die wasn't an accident. The report didn't say anything about homicide after all....
The vast number of studies that have huge holes you could drive a truck through would be why you see people pointing out the holes so often. It's a study. It was presented for discussion. The most notible thing about it is that it doesn't try to draw a conclusion. Every day on every subject we work from "the best of our knowledge". Studies like this can add to that. Part of successfully adding "best knowledge" is looking close enough to see if information should be added as knowledge.
Which would you rather people do? Pick studies apart to find the flaws, or accept studies at face value? I know which I would prefer.
The summary says that the effects are also there for decaf coffee. While I know that decaf coffee still has some caffeine, it is in small enough less that they would have seen some difference between the decaf and the caffeinated. Thus, this study would not point to caffeine as the beneficial active ingredient.
Also, it states that coffee drinkers showed a lower rate of death due to accident and injury. This SCREAMS correlation.
The fact that they say the results showed a decrease in death due to accident and injury is a pretty good indicator that this is correlation as opposed to causation. It would be a pretty big leap to claim that coffee will save you from falling down the stairs.
Ah, yes, the next rationalization of BMI. the "Only body builders with 4% body fat are inaccurately calculated as obese by the BMI."
If you have enough muscle mass to put you overweight per the BMI and have 4% body fat, then the BMI is grudgingly accepted as having an exception, but as soon as that body fat reaches 10%, he suddenly becomes a lazy fat ass, and the BMI mysteriously becomes accurate. All the while the guy with no muscle mass at all is called 'healthy' with his 30% body fat.
I am no body builder, but my lean muscle mass, measured via hydrostatic weighing has me at 168 pounds of lean body mass. That means that to be considered 'normal' weight, I can have only 10 lbs of body fat. So, according to the BMI anything over ~5-6% body fat makes me 'over weight'. It also says that I would be 'healthy' at 133 pounds. This would require not only reaching 0% body fat, but amputating body parts to boot.
BMI is complete crap and dangerous. It tells healthy people to lose weight and fat people that they are healthy.
Greater muscle mass could easily explain it. Most people don't realize that our current definition of 'obese' puts this as one of those 'lazy fat asses'.
An even easier answer would be that there has been a massive shift our countries genetic makeup in the last 20 years.
With a 20 minute outcome. I would require every new partner I have sex with to take the test. A cheek swab and 20 minutes of none penetrating fooling around is simply not that much to ask. For those that have lots of partners, a 93% error rate would pinpoint them pretty darn quick. For those that are monogamous, they are no worse off than before, and can still retest.
I see this as more useful for testing those that you will be having sex with than for testing yourself. Keep in mind, by the time the test comes up, most people would have already decided to have sex with the other person. Not having the test at all would result in the exact same activity as having the test and getting a false negative. Now, if they could just get the same kind of test for herpes, we would be set to go.
The most common pattern is that people eat 'healthy' and get lots of exercise. They either are get no significant health results and give up on a pointless endeavor, or find that it works for them and declare it proof that everyone it doesn't work for is a lazy liar. The whole subject is a mess of confirmation bias.
Apples to Apples. The exercise side of the equation is what defined the years of work. With exercise, you can't accrue effort. With paying cash for a procedure you could work 40 minutes a day and be done in 62 years. I chose 15 as the age to start working because if I had chosen 12, even MORE people would have complained. Starting at 12 would just reduce the end year you needed to work.
With your second paragraph, you are just rationalizing. The only way the procedure would need to be under 20 minutes would be if it had to be done daily. Most medical procedures do not. If it is just a shot, it could be less than an hour. If it is part of standard physicals, it could add less then 5 minutes to the time it takes. I'll give you that the time it takes for the procedure should be accounted for if it is significant, but that would just subtract the few hundred dollars off the equation.
If you ENJOY it, then it isn't work, but for a very large percentage of the population it is work, and is not enjoyable. The rest of that may be true, but doesn't change the fact that calling 20 minutes of exercise a day "free" is completely untrue, and possibly very expensive.
First problem is that "healthy weight" is a misnomer to begin with. BMI is complete crap and down right dangerous. It leads to people who are terribly unhealthy calling healthy people lazy fat asses. My lean body mass is only 10 lbs below 'overweight'. That is when I don't get exercise. If I work out, my lean body mass exceeds the 'overweight' values for BMI. A healthy quantity of body fat puts me in the 'obese' category when I get moderate exercise.
My body makeup means that I can literally be at risk of dying due to too little body fat while simultaneously being overweight. The fact that this is not that uncommon doesn't seem to stop the BMI myth from perpetuating.
While you are a good example of metabolism keeping someone thin, that isn't the only factor. When I say that we need to consider metabolism, that isn't at the expense of other factors. In my home, my wife's weight is almost 100% controlled by exercise. If she starts putting on weight, changing her diet doesn't help. A bit of extra exercise has dramatic results. On the other hand, my muscle content ranges from high without exercise (lean body mass is only ~10 lbs below 'overweight'), to excessive if I work out (lean body mass puts me in the 'overweight' category). My fat content is almost exclusively controlled by diet. A high fat low sugar diet will make me shed fat rather quickly.
* My lean body mass was determined via hydrostatic weighing.
Slashdot Mirror
EROEI sounds suspiciously close to Eloi... I'm just saying...
Add to that the fact that you wouldn't even need to use the persons entire vocabulary.
Sure a dead rotting corpse will reduce it's mass. It was presumed that why you say "Eat Less Exercise More", you are not intending for people to injure themselves. Apparently I was wrong since the "Still it remains a physical fact that putting less energy into the system than is expended MUST, in time, lead to a reduction of energy and/or mass" does not have to happen before systems start shutting down.
I didn't say that you said you could exercise indefinitely without any input. You said that it was just conservation of mass and energy, which means that you claim that you can exercise non-stop until the mass and energy required to do so is no longer in your body. That is certainly less than 6 hours. Your claim that it is conservation of mass and energy would also require that large amounts of mass or energy are not leaving your body in a way other than being burned off as energy. Thus no poop.
Claiming that conservation of mass proves a formula, AND that all of the inputs and outputs don't need to be known is hand wavy pseudo-math. Different chemicals will run different machines at different efficiencies with different fuels and produce different quantities of waste.
The human body is an incredibly complex machine with a lot of different components. "Eat Less Exercise More" relies entirely on the idea that all meterial put into that complex machine will run the machine at equal efficiency with equal waste no matter what you put into it.
Using your logic, YOU should be able to do pull ups for 6 hours straight with no rest, as you will still have energy stored in your body. After all, it is just an issue of conservation of energy and mass. And you never poop.
Which is why it is correlation instead of causation. It isn't the coffee that is reducing the accidents and injuries. It is the belief that they drank a stimulant. There just happens to be a very high correlation between people who actually drink coffee and people that believe they are drinking a stimulant.
I don't deny placebo effects and I would say that we agree far more than disagree on this subject.
Stop teasing the guy. Everyone knows it ends with Picard turning on a light, and viewers see Picard in bed, saying, "Honey, you won't believe the dream I just had." to his wife Emily played by Suzanne Pleshette.
Decaf coffee isn't really know for actually waking people up.
I agree that personal enjoyment of job and exercise would need to be factored in, as well as how much or little exercise would make you feel good. The 62 years being a long time is actually an argument in favor of a medical procedure over exercise, as exercise must be spread out over a long time, while work can be bunched into a shorter span with longer sessions.
Either way, exercise is not really 'Free' if your time has any value. Thus it isn't a question of costly procedure or free exercise. It wouldn't likely even be consistant on which is more expensive between people since different people have different earning potentials.
There is no ambiguity. It said "people", it meant "people", and there is no way to interpret it any other way that makes any sense whatsoever. Thinking that they meant states when they said people make no sense at all.
Thinking that it is a 'conservation of energy and mass' issue is a fantasy. Humans are not closed system, and counting only food consumed and energy burned in exercise is not counting all of the inputs and outputs. Saying "conservation of mass" clearly does not imply that you understand it.
Please reference the 2 sentences that does this. Since the NDAA I have read specifically and clearly states the opposite.
2. The evidence suggests that Slashdot editors, while perhaps having some faults, should not take criticism from you on grammar and language clarity seriously.
Not a valid complaint. Just because someone isn't good at a task doesn't mean that they cannot recognize someone else's incompetence. My 8 year old son can point out that the guy running the stop sign is a bad driver. That neither indicates that he is a better driver, nor does it make him wrong. Most tasks take far less skill to identify whether it is done well or not than they do to actually perform well.
The report shows a lower death rate due to injury and accident as well. Unless your implying that the wet floor causing you to slip and die wasn't an accident. The report didn't say anything about homicide after all....
The vast number of studies that have huge holes you could drive a truck through would be why you see people pointing out the holes so often. It's a study. It was presented for discussion. The most notible thing about it is that it doesn't try to draw a conclusion. Every day on every subject we work from "the best of our knowledge". Studies like this can add to that. Part of successfully adding "best knowledge" is looking close enough to see if information should be added as knowledge.
Which would you rather people do? Pick studies apart to find the flaws, or accept studies at face value? I know which I would prefer.
The summary says that the effects are also there for decaf coffee. While I know that decaf coffee still has some caffeine, it is in small enough less that they would have seen some difference between the decaf and the caffeinated. Thus, this study would not point to caffeine as the beneficial active ingredient.
Also, it states that coffee drinkers showed a lower rate of death due to accident and injury. This SCREAMS correlation.
The fact that they say the results showed a decrease in death due to accident and injury is a pretty good indicator that this is correlation as opposed to causation. It would be a pretty big leap to claim that coffee will save you from falling down the stairs.
While 89% are not bank robbers, 100% are guilty of something else.
Ah, yes, the next rationalization of BMI. the "Only body builders with 4% body fat are inaccurately calculated as obese by the BMI."
If you have enough muscle mass to put you overweight per the BMI and have 4% body fat, then the BMI is grudgingly accepted as having an exception, but as soon as that body fat reaches 10%, he suddenly becomes a lazy fat ass, and the BMI mysteriously becomes accurate. All the while the guy with no muscle mass at all is called 'healthy' with his 30% body fat.
I am no body builder, but my lean muscle mass, measured via hydrostatic weighing has me at 168 pounds of lean body mass. That means that to be considered 'normal' weight, I can have only 10 lbs of body fat. So, according to the BMI anything over ~5-6% body fat makes me 'over weight'. It also says that I would be 'healthy' at 133 pounds. This would require not only reaching 0% body fat, but amputating body parts to boot.
BMI is complete crap and dangerous. It tells healthy people to lose weight and fat people that they are healthy.
Greater muscle mass could easily explain it. Most people don't realize that our current definition of 'obese' puts this as one of those 'lazy fat asses'.
An even easier answer would be that there has been a massive shift our countries genetic makeup in the last 20 years.
With a 20 minute outcome. I would require every new partner I have sex with to take the test. A cheek swab and 20 minutes of none penetrating fooling around is simply not that much to ask. For those that have lots of partners, a 93% error rate would pinpoint them pretty darn quick. For those that are monogamous, they are no worse off than before, and can still retest.
I see this as more useful for testing those that you will be having sex with than for testing yourself. Keep in mind, by the time the test comes up, most people would have already decided to have sex with the other person. Not having the test at all would result in the exact same activity as having the test and getting a false negative. Now, if they could just get the same kind of test for herpes, we would be set to go.
The most common pattern is that people eat 'healthy' and get lots of exercise. They either are get no significant health results and give up on a pointless endeavor, or find that it works for them and declare it proof that everyone it doesn't work for is a lazy liar. The whole subject is a mess of confirmation bias.
Apples to Apples. The exercise side of the equation is what defined the years of work. With exercise, you can't accrue effort. With paying cash for a procedure you could work 40 minutes a day and be done in 62 years. I chose 15 as the age to start working because if I had chosen 12, even MORE people would have complained. Starting at 12 would just reduce the end year you needed to work.
With your second paragraph, you are just rationalizing. The only way the procedure would need to be under 20 minutes would be if it had to be done daily. Most medical procedures do not. If it is just a shot, it could be less than an hour. If it is part of standard physicals, it could add less then 5 minutes to the time it takes. I'll give you that the time it takes for the procedure should be accounted for if it is significant, but that would just subtract the few hundred dollars off the equation.
If you ENJOY it, then it isn't work, but for a very large percentage of the population it is work, and is not enjoyable. The rest of that may be true, but doesn't change the fact that calling 20 minutes of exercise a day "free" is completely untrue, and possibly very expensive.
First problem is that "healthy weight" is a misnomer to begin with. BMI is complete crap and down right dangerous. It leads to people who are terribly unhealthy calling healthy people lazy fat asses. My lean body mass is only 10 lbs below 'overweight'. That is when I don't get exercise. If I work out, my lean body mass exceeds the 'overweight' values for BMI. A healthy quantity of body fat puts me in the 'obese' category when I get moderate exercise.
My body makeup means that I can literally be at risk of dying due to too little body fat while simultaneously being overweight. The fact that this is not that uncommon doesn't seem to stop the BMI myth from perpetuating.
While you are a good example of metabolism keeping someone thin, that isn't the only factor. When I say that we need to consider metabolism, that isn't at the expense of other factors. In my home, my wife's weight is almost 100% controlled by exercise. If she starts putting on weight, changing her diet doesn't help. A bit of extra exercise has dramatic results. On the other hand, my muscle content ranges from high without exercise (lean body mass is only ~10 lbs below 'overweight'), to excessive if I work out (lean body mass puts me in the 'overweight' category). My fat content is almost exclusively controlled by diet. A high fat low sugar diet will make me shed fat rather quickly.
* My lean body mass was determined via hydrostatic weighing.