I never said "deserve." I was a fat guy, and now I'm not a fat guy. I did it the same way everyone ultimately does it: eating less and moving more. There is some, but not much, person to person variation in BMR. You can calculate your own BMR to a reasonable accuracy using your age, mass, gender, and body composition. From there it becomes an engineering problem: energy in and energy out.
It's a simple problem, but not an easy one. The energy in part is extremely difficult to tackle. Hyperpalatable foods - foods with a combination of fats, salts, and simple carbs or sugars - are a huge problem. They are cheap and make it easy to eat far far more than one needs. It's very difficult to maintain the energy in side of the equation when we spend our days surrounded by calorie-dense, delicious food that is essentially free.
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails. The energy equation always wins. You can put someone on an isocaloric diet, measure their mass change over time, and calculate their average calorie expenditure.
Satiety is also strongly affected by the food you eat, which is why low-carb diets are often so effective. It's really rather difficult to eat 3000 calories worth of meat and vegetables a day, while 3000 is no problem when you include bread, chips, ice cream, soda, juice, etc.
On top of that, our society is getting fatter and fatter. It's not because BMR is changing.
tl;dr Variability in BMR from person to person can be explained almost entirely by the known predictors (gender, age, height, fat mass, and fat free mass), and the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Yes, I read the article, and my comment stands. Obesity is, in general, not caused by variance in BMR. Far from it. It's caused by an imbalance between eating and activity habits. There are a lot of factors that go into both the energy in and energy out sides of the equation, from hormone levels to satiety levels to calorie-dense and hyperpalatable foods, etc.
But the bottom line is that obesity in the western world is a factor of overabundance of extremely tasty, calorie-dense food combined with increasingly sedentary lifestyles, causing massive energy imbalance. The person-to-person variation in BMR, which accounts for something like 200 calories 25th-75th percentile, is dwarfed by the energy imbalance caused by dietary habits and lifestyle.
BMR (basal metabolic rate) really doesn't vary much person to person. What does vary is calorie intake and activity levels.
For the most part, people who are obese aren't just eating the extra 100, 200 calories a day above their potentially low BMR. They're eating hundreds of calories above that, and getting little to no physical activity.
Article is completely meaningless
on
The Promise of 5G
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
5G will turn this one-way interaction we have today with data into something new. Imagine a new network that will enable machines to communicate instantly without any human intervention, and to do things on our behalf and for our benefit without our active engagement.
... What? Is 4G too slow for "machines to communicate instantly without any human intervention"?
And speaking of 4G vs 5G... I can burn through my 5 GB/month data allowance in about 45 minutes by maxing out my 4G connection. Not in any hurry to do it in 45 seconds via 5G.
Our cars will download real-time traffic information and use it to avoid congestion and accidents, getting us safely and quickly where we need to go.
Imagine a typical PGA par-4 hole that's 520 yards. The very best woman may hit 270 with the driver off the tee. That's barely halfway to the hole; there's 250 yards to go. Assuming a fairway shot, she can use a 3 wood and get another 200, 220 yards with a good strike. That leaves her 30 yards to the hole, meaning she'll be using a wedge to approach and then a possible putt for par.
The top 25 men on the PGA tour mostly average 300+ off the tee, with the best averaging over 310. Hit 300 off the tee on the 520 and you've got 220 to the hole, which a man can do with a 5 wood or a hybrid (or possibly a long iron). That can put him on the green in 2, putting for birdie.
So in this hypothetical average hole, the woman has basically zero chance for a birdie, whereas a man can be on the green putting for birdie in two strokes.
Now for a real world comparison: the 2014 US Open. The men's course was 7,562 yards and the winner (Martin Kaymer) finished in 271 strokes. The women's course was 6,649 yards (almost 100 yards shorter) and the winner (Michelle Wie) finished in 278 strokes. The women's course had par-4s as short as 330 yards, while the shorters par-4 on the men's course was 402.
The average hole on the men's tour is probably around 410 yards. The average on the women's tour is probably around 350.
Club head velocities are much, much higher in the men's tour than the women's. For the most part, the best women just can't get down the fairway as well. When you're 20-50 yards shorter than the average male off the tee on most of the holes, you can't compete.
There aren't many average men in the NFL or PGA tour. There are no shortage of women that would fare far, far better in the NFL or PGA than an average man. The issue here is at the extremes: there are really no women who will be able to compete with the *best* men in the NFL or PGA tour.
Chances are there will never be a woman who could play in the NFL. The PGA tour is another matter, though.
There is nothing in the rules preventing a woman from playing on an NFL team.
There is also no rule against women competing in the PGA tour. Some women have competed in PGA events. There just have not yet been any good enough to succeed at that level.
You won't be able to buy a seat and leave it empty both ways.
When no one checks in for the flight out, there will be probably be someone waiting on standby to take it. And when the person doesn't check in for the outbound flight, their return ticket is canceled and sold.
People love to complain about the authorities, but think about it for a minute... It costs money to enforce regulations. Departments are only given limited budgets. They're not going to add to their regulatory duties things that don't matter for no good reason
Oh yes they are. You're right they're only given a limited budget... but agencies are always desperate to increase that budget year-to-year. They certainly don't do that by saving money and not spending their allocation. They make sure to spend it all. They buy equipment they don't need, they institute programs that aren't necessary, etc. They expand their scope and claim they don't have enough money to do all the things that they do, so they're underfunded and need more money next FY.
I worked in state government for a long time. This is SOP.
In 2015 do we really believe that some Snidely-Whiplash HR person is rubbing their hands together and cackling while they shred all the valid applications from blacks and other minorities?
No, which is part of the problem. It's a lot more subtle than that. People often don't even realize they're doing it. Look at the experiment where people with "black-sounding" names got passed over while those with "white-sounding" names got interviews, despite identical resumes and cover letters.
I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.
Have you actually seen the movie? I was thinking, from the trailers, that it would be a dumb movie. But the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes scores are about as high as I've seen for a movie, particularly such a big budget action movie. I'm open the possibility that it's good.
Admission to Harvard isn't a prize or reward for having good test scores and a high GPA.
There's inherent value - both to the institution itself and to the educational community - in an institution of higher education having a student body that is highly diverse in many dimensions. Those dimensions include things like ethnicity, economic background, activism, political beliefs, religion, etc. Harvard has so many incredibly well-qualified applicants that it can afford to curate its student body as it sees fit.
Medical schools are well-known for this. Underrepresented minorities tend to get accepted with significantly lower stats than whites or overrepresented minorities such as east Asians. There are good reasons for this. One, it's rather easy to do since only about 45% of people who apply to medical school get in. The schools are flooded with exceptionally well-qualified students who simply don't get in anywhere. Two, since the population of physicians is so tightly controlled, it takes this kind of coordinated, deliberate action to make sure the national pool of physicians is properly diverse (which it isn't).
Removing race and ethnicity indicators from the applications may help make admissions more race-blind, yes. My point is that isn't necessarily a good thing. Neither Harvard nor our nation are well-served by making the campus more homogeneous.
There will be a market for vehicles with tunable performance characteristics. It may be a small market but it will exist, even if it's limited to track-only vehicles like Atoms. And, frankly, if you're modding your vehicle for performance to the point where you need to tweak valve timing yourself, you should be using that car on a track anyway.
Came here to say this. This has nothing to do with replacing your spark plugs or ball joints. This is about modding your ECU. That said, I think that if a manufacturer ships an ECU that can be modded to such a degree that it causes the brakes to fail, the manufacturer bears a lot of that fault. However, in general, cars aren't cell phones or PCs. It's no big deal if you load up Cyanogenmod and your phone crashes. It's a pretty big deal if you flash your ECU and you lose traction through a turn thanks to some modified vehicle dynamics and kill someone.
CO2 is the primary driver of respiration. Breathing high levels of CO2 makes you feel like you're asphyxiating, just like when you're holding your breath. It's painful and miserable.
I'm guessing the real reason is so they can do some sort of compression between the ground and aircraft. Lossy compression of Facebook and Google images could save a good bit of bandwidth, and they can't do that without intercepting the unencrypted data using this method.
Bandwidth at 30,000+ feet is inherently limited, and heavy-load activities like streaming videos from the ground can weigh down our network. That means playback is subject to poor video quality, buffering, and slower connection speeds for your fellow passengers.
Oh wait. That's exactly what they say. They're very up-front about not being able to stream video.
I paid for some GoGo on a flight recently. The signup page made it pretty clear that data speeds were pretty limited and I wasn't allowed to stream video. I don't know why they need to spoof certs for that as opposed to just blocking sites or protocols though. Maybe they do some sort of data compression on the ground before transmitting to the plane or something?
No, it really is kind of a big deal. WebMD is for-profit and largely funded by advertisers such as pharmaceutical companies. The site uses clickbait-style headlines to drive page views and actively preys on fear.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said "deserve." I was a fat guy, and now I'm not a fat guy. I did it the same way everyone ultimately does it: eating less and moving more. There is some, but not much, person to person variation in BMR. You can calculate your own BMR to a reasonable accuracy using your age, mass, gender, and body composition. From there it becomes an engineering problem: energy in and energy out.
It's a simple problem, but not an easy one. The energy in part is extremely difficult to tackle. Hyperpalatable foods - foods with a combination of fats, salts, and simple carbs or sugars - are a huge problem. They are cheap and make it easy to eat far far more than one needs. It's very difficult to maintain the energy in side of the equation when we spend our days surrounded by calorie-dense, delicious food that is essentially free.
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails. The energy equation always wins. You can put someone on an isocaloric diet, measure their mass change over time, and calculate their average calorie expenditure.
Satiety is also strongly affected by the food you eat, which is why low-carb diets are often so effective. It's really rather difficult to eat 3000 calories worth of meat and vegetables a day, while 3000 is no problem when you include bread, chips, ice cream, soda, juice, etc.
On top of that, our society is getting fatter and fatter. It's not because BMR is changing.
tl;dr Variability in BMR from person to person can be explained almost entirely by the known predictors (gender, age, height, fat mass, and fat free mass), and the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Yes, I read the article, and my comment stands. Obesity is, in general, not caused by variance in BMR. Far from it. It's caused by an imbalance between eating and activity habits. There are a lot of factors that go into both the energy in and energy out sides of the equation, from hormone levels to satiety levels to calorie-dense and hyperpalatable foods, etc.
But the bottom line is that obesity in the western world is a factor of overabundance of extremely tasty, calorie-dense food combined with increasingly sedentary lifestyles, causing massive energy imbalance. The person-to-person variation in BMR, which accounts for something like 200 calories 25th-75th percentile, is dwarfed by the energy imbalance caused by dietary habits and lifestyle.
BMR (basal metabolic rate) really doesn't vary much person to person. What does vary is calorie intake and activity levels.
For the most part, people who are obese aren't just eating the extra 100, 200 calories a day above their potentially low BMR. They're eating hundreds of calories above that, and getting little to no physical activity.
And speaking of 4G vs 5G... I can burn through my 5 GB/month data allowance in about 45 minutes by maxing out my 4G connection. Not in any hurry to do it in 45 seconds via 5G.
O RLY? 4G is way too slow for real-time traffic.
Imagine a typical PGA par-4 hole that's 520 yards. The very best woman may hit 270 with the driver off the tee. That's barely halfway to the hole; there's 250 yards to go. Assuming a fairway shot, she can use a 3 wood and get another 200, 220 yards with a good strike. That leaves her 30 yards to the hole, meaning she'll be using a wedge to approach and then a possible putt for par.
The top 25 men on the PGA tour mostly average 300+ off the tee, with the best averaging over 310. Hit 300 off the tee on the 520 and you've got 220 to the hole, which a man can do with a 5 wood or a hybrid (or possibly a long iron). That can put him on the green in 2, putting for birdie.
So in this hypothetical average hole, the woman has basically zero chance for a birdie, whereas a man can be on the green putting for birdie in two strokes.
Now for a real world comparison: the 2014 US Open. The men's course was 7,562 yards and the winner (Martin Kaymer) finished in 271 strokes. The women's course was 6,649 yards (almost 100 yards shorter) and the winner (Michelle Wie) finished in 278 strokes. The women's course had par-4s as short as 330 yards, while the shorters par-4 on the men's course was 402.
The average hole on the men's tour is probably around 410 yards. The average on the women's tour is probably around 350.
Club head velocities are much, much higher in the men's tour than the women's. For the most part, the best women just can't get down the fairway as well. When you're 20-50 yards shorter than the average male off the tee on most of the holes, you can't compete.
There aren't many average men in the NFL or PGA tour. There are no shortage of women that would fare far, far better in the NFL or PGA than an average man. The issue here is at the extremes: there are really no women who will be able to compete with the *best* men in the NFL or PGA tour.
Chances are there will never be a woman who could play in the NFL. The PGA tour is another matter, though.
There is nothing in the rules preventing a woman from playing on an NFL team.
There is also no rule against women competing in the PGA tour. Some women have competed in PGA events. There just have not yet been any good enough to succeed at that level.
You won't be able to buy a seat and leave it empty both ways.
When no one checks in for the flight out, there will be probably be someone waiting on standby to take it. And when the person doesn't check in for the outbound flight, their return ticket is canceled and sold.
Icelandair has "Economy comfort," where you have a few extra inches of knee/leg room and the middle seat is kept empty.
People love to complain about the authorities, but think about it for a minute... It costs money to enforce regulations. Departments are only given limited budgets. They're not going to add to their regulatory duties things that don't matter for no good reason
Oh yes they are. You're right they're only given a limited budget... but agencies are always desperate to increase that budget year-to-year. They certainly don't do that by saving money and not spending their allocation. They make sure to spend it all. They buy equipment they don't need, they institute programs that aren't necessary, etc. They expand their scope and claim they don't have enough money to do all the things that they do, so they're underfunded and need more money next FY.
I worked in state government for a long time. This is SOP.
"Pattern recognition" based on race is racism by definition.
In 2015 do we really believe that some Snidely-Whiplash HR person is rubbing their hands together and cackling while they shred all the valid applications from blacks and other minorities?
No, which is part of the problem. It's a lot more subtle than that. People often don't even realize they're doing it. Look at the experiment where people with "black-sounding" names got passed over while those with "white-sounding" names got interviews, despite identical resumes and cover letters.
I don't think it survives in the environment, and it doesn't seem to have any animal hosts. There are places in the world where it's endemic and somewhat common, and it can live in the pharynx of vaccinated or asymptomatic humans. So it probably comes into a country from an immigrant or traveler with some frequency, it just doesn't spread because of vaccination.
Then there's this kid.
Have you actually seen the movie? I was thinking, from the trailers, that it would be a dumb movie. But the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes scores are about as high as I've seen for a movie, particularly such a big budget action movie. I'm open the possibility that it's good.
Admission to Harvard isn't a prize or reward for having good test scores and a high GPA.
There's inherent value - both to the institution itself and to the educational community - in an institution of higher education having a student body that is highly diverse in many dimensions. Those dimensions include things like ethnicity, economic background, activism, political beliefs, religion, etc. Harvard has so many incredibly well-qualified applicants that it can afford to curate its student body as it sees fit.
Medical schools are well-known for this. Underrepresented minorities tend to get accepted with significantly lower stats than whites or overrepresented minorities such as east Asians. There are good reasons for this. One, it's rather easy to do since only about 45% of people who apply to medical school get in. The schools are flooded with exceptionally well-qualified students who simply don't get in anywhere. Two, since the population of physicians is so tightly controlled, it takes this kind of coordinated, deliberate action to make sure the national pool of physicians is properly diverse (which it isn't).
Removing race and ethnicity indicators from the applications may help make admissions more race-blind, yes. My point is that isn't necessarily a good thing. Neither Harvard nor our nation are well-served by making the campus more homogeneous.
The rep literally and directly told him that his Netflix video would be improved by going from the 50 to 75 Mbps tier.
There will be a market for vehicles with tunable performance characteristics. It may be a small market but it will exist, even if it's limited to track-only vehicles like Atoms. And, frankly, if you're modding your vehicle for performance to the point where you need to tweak valve timing yourself, you should be using that car on a track anyway.
Came here to say this. This has nothing to do with replacing your spark plugs or ball joints. This is about modding your ECU. That said, I think that if a manufacturer ships an ECU that can be modded to such a degree that it causes the brakes to fail, the manufacturer bears a lot of that fault. However, in general, cars aren't cell phones or PCs. It's no big deal if you load up Cyanogenmod and your phone crashes. It's a pretty big deal if you flash your ECU and you lose traction through a turn thanks to some modified vehicle dynamics and kill someone.
CO2 is the primary driver of respiration. Breathing high levels of CO2 makes you feel like you're asphyxiating, just like when you're holding your breath. It's painful and miserable.
Storm surge? It's 4 degrees in Plymouth right now.
I'm guessing the real reason is so they can do some sort of compression between the ground and aircraft. Lossy compression of Facebook and Google images could save a good bit of bandwidth, and they can't do that without intercepting the unencrypted data using this method.
They could say something like this:
Oh wait. That's exactly what they say. They're very up-front about not being able to stream video.
I paid for some GoGo on a flight recently. The signup page made it pretty clear that data speeds were pretty limited and I wasn't allowed to stream video. I don't know why they need to spoof certs for that as opposed to just blocking sites or protocols though. Maybe they do some sort of data compression on the ground before transmitting to the plane or something?
No, it really is kind of a big deal. WebMD is for-profit and largely funded by advertisers such as pharmaceutical companies. The site uses clickbait-style headlines to drive page views and actively preys on fear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
(I replied to the wrong post above, sorry for the dupe)