I'm not suggesting that every Apple Watch is 10K, but that Apple has added "exclusives" in the past, and priced them at eye-popping price points.
yes, and Carl's Jr has an exclusive $6,000 burger combo only available at the Palms, and Oprah Winfrey has a gold-plated toilet seat. Apple is not innovating when they glue diamonds on stuff.
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
No they're not. A single bus causes more wear and tear on the road than thousands of cars combined.
The problem is not cars, the problem is gas emissions. Once that problem is solved properly, the world of mass transit will be disrupted as things like urban sprawl will become a solution rather than a concern.
I assumed it was obvious that very very low calories is the other extreme to avoid, but that's because I often forget about aspies. Sorry about that; next time I'll do my best to be more inclusive in my posts.
it's going to start eating your muscles That is nonsense. As long as you eat... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles. To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
No. You're once again guessing instead of bringing actual facts. It takes about 3 days before the body starts losing muscle mass if you stop eating carbs and don't replace them properly to enter ketosis.
when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption
So it does make you slimmer? That's great news!
Are you on the rag? I always welcome opposing arguments because that's how we all learn, but people like you who just come to complain and high-five themselves at what they perceive as clever cracks are sucking the life out of these threads.
You really cannot trust a word from Wikipedia on any topic that is more controversial than 5+2 = 7. [...] Eat less, burn more, and you will lose weight. That's it.
Maybe you need to revisit your opinion of Wikipedia, because you're completely wrong about how losing weight works.
In the short term, you can lose weight by increasing physical activity, but after a while the body catches up and you get back to what it believes to be your adequate weight. I know it's easier to blame fat people than to challenge your own preconceived ideas, that's why people get their panties in a bunch over this.
they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted,
Why do you spout such nonsense? Insulin level is trivial to measure. If what you proclaim were actually true it would be obvious and proven.
The level of insulin constantly fluctuates, like the stock market. If you "measure" it at one moment and try again a few minutes later it can vary wildly. That's why most studies are based on insuling level while fasting, to minimize the rollercoaster.
As for things being "obvious and proven", if you take 5 minutes to do a bit of research you will find plenty of studies to support what I mention, and plenty more to discredit the common misconceptions such as "eat less move more to lose weight".
In January I decided I should do something with my weight.
Come back in one year and tell us about it. 6 months is not evidence when it comes to diets; most dieters gain back the weight after 12 to 18 months.
I'm not saying it will happen to you because you seem to go about it in a responsible way, but don't call things BS based on 6 months of personal data.
Carbohydrates and calories have no nutritional value whatsoever?
Calories is a measure of energy, not nutrition. As for carbohydrates, they are not *needed*. They are edible and impact the metabolism, but they are not essential to survive. You could eat cardboard and make it a central part of your diet if you wanted, it wouldn't mean it's something you need. Same goes for carbs.
However you can influence it by looking at your insulin level, e.g. don't eat stuff that is converted super fast into sugar (or is sugar) and combine it with fat.
This has been proven wrong, many times. No diet based on glycemic index has survived actual studies. It is becoming more and more apparent that the level of insulin is caused by obesity, not the other way around.
Did you know that the level of insulin during fasting is higher for obese people? This has been demonstrated time and again, and if you know someone with type-2 diabetes that needs insulin shots, they will confirm to you that it's really difficult to lose weight when you're swimming in insulin, and it's not a matter of being hungry, the body simply won't shed weight.
They did an experiment in the 90s, giving gradually larger doses of insulin to subjects for a period of 6 months while cutting their calorie intake, and yet on average they gained 20 pounds.
There is no pill to fix that. There's some evidence that a diet of mostly high fat and plants with intermittend fasting and intermittent carb days is the best approach. So far it's the best hope because the level of physical activty in the USA has significantly increased at the same time as the level of obesity skyrocketed, so "eat less move more" just doesn't work.
Hey feel free to subscribe to common misconceptions instead of educating yourself. This whole subject area has been plagued by such shallow beliefs and unproven "truths" that resistance from the lemmings is to be expected when they're presented with new information.
that is actually false. Insulin is a blood sugar chemical reaction not a reaction to what "might" be coming, it is not influenced by what you taste or think.
Instead of guessing things, why don't you document yourself? The amount of insulin that gets released is not based on the actual sugar content of what you eat, it's based on a fairly complex combination of what's in the liver and how the hypothalamus interprets signals.
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
I've been hearing about this for a while. What I do is I always drink sugar-free sweetened beverages together with food (or at least a snack), never by itself.
That's even worse because when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption and overall gut health. So whatever you're eating while you drink diet soft drinks is not going to have a smooth ride in your system.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in.
Not necessarily. See Wikipedia:
Brown sugar is a sucrose sugar product with a distinctive brown color due to the presence of molasses. It is either an unrefined or partially refined soft sugar consisting of sugar crystals with some residual molasses content (natural brown sugar), or it is produced by the addition of molasses to refined white sugar (commercial brown sugar).
But if science is science, then calories in is equal to work done with excess calories becoming weight gained.
This is a simplistic and flawed conclusion. The body is not a closed system that lives in a vacuum with only calories as input/output, it's a lot more complex than that.
Also, calories are not equal. For instance, given a same amount of calories, dietary fat is absorbed a lot more easily by the body than proteins. This doesn't simply mean a difference in energy expenditure, it also means that time is involved.
Here's another example. If you stop eating carbs but you compensate by eating more proteins but not more fatty acids (like omega-3), your body won't go into ketosis, and because your brain can't find neither glucose or ketones to feed itself, it's going to start eating your muscles, not your excess fat. With less muscle your metabolism will progressively slow down. And this can happen no matter how many calories you eat or how many reps you do at the gym.
If they see no advantage in prioritizing health over immediate gratification, then why the hell should they change a damn thing?
Here's the thing: unless you consistently eat busloads of food (like 10,000 calories a day), the quantity of food that you eat doesn't actually impact your weight on the long term. Neither does the amount of exercise you do. The body always adjusts itself to maintain its weight, slowing down or accelerating the metabolism, playing with body temperature, etc. That's why people on a diet are cold or tired, and why fat people sweat more (it's not because of "insulation").
So even if you put those people on a treadmill they're not going to lose much weight, which makes your "delayed gratification" approach useless. You can burn them down and they will temporarily lose weight, but most of it will be lean mass and water, and soon they'll get back to their initial weight.
To lower the target weight, the key is not to exercise more or eat less, it's to gradually increase sensitivity to leptin, by having a carefully tuned rotation of high fat and carbs aspects to the diet.
This is not wishful thinking. See on wikipedia:
Dieters who lose weight, particularly those with an overabundance of fat cells, experience a drop in levels of circulating leptin. This drop causes reversible decreases in thyroid activity, sympathetic tone, and energy expenditure in skeletal muscle, and increases in muscle efficiency and parasympathetic tone. The result is that a person who has lost weight below their natural body fat set-point has a lower basal metabolic rate than an individual at the same weight who is of that natural weight; these changes are leptin-mediated, homeostatic responses meant to reduce energy expenditure and promote weight regain as a result of fat cells being shrunken below normal size.
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison, but if you can progressively dial it down to a point where you don't put sugar at all your body will thank you.
Let's be clear: the body has no need for sugar, it has no nutritional value whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
the shift from OS 9 to OS X was enormous.
that was in 2001. Since then it's always been looking like an old KDE, version after version.
I'm not suggesting that every Apple Watch is 10K, but that Apple has added "exclusives" in the past, and priced them at eye-popping price points.
yes, and Carl's Jr has an exclusive $6,000 burger combo only available at the Palms, and Oprah Winfrey has a gold-plated toilet seat. Apple is not innovating when they glue diamonds on stuff.
Compared to the same number of people in a car, they're WONDERFUL for the environment.
No they're not. A single bus causes more wear and tear on the road than thousands of cars combined.
The problem is not cars, the problem is gas emissions. Once that problem is solved properly, the world of mass transit will be disrupted as things like urban sprawl will become a solution rather than a concern.
I assumed it was obvious that very very low calories is the other extreme to avoid, but that's because I often forget about aspies. Sorry about that; next time I'll do my best to be more inclusive in my posts.
it's going to start eating your muscles ... what ever it is, nothing will attack your muscles.
That is nonsense.
As long as you eat
To "eat" muscles you need to be _starving_ minimum 3 weeks, and after that time mainly only dead cells are "eaten", to really "consume" your muscles yo need to starve much longer-
No. You're once again guessing instead of bringing actual facts. It takes about 3 days before the body starts losing muscle mass if you stop eating carbs and don't replace them properly to enter ketosis.
Read the book, then come back to the discussion. It's truly fascinating. I also suggest "The Obesity Code":
https://www.amazon.com/Obesity...
It's not a fad diet, it's an overview of the issue.
when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption
So it does make you slimmer? That's great news!
Are you on the rag? I always welcome opposing arguments because that's how we all learn, but people like you who just come to complain and high-five themselves at what they perceive as clever cracks are sucking the life out of these threads.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison,
Oh, dear. Where to begin....?
(facepalm)
You could begin by replying something if you have actually something to share. Nobody really cares about your facepalms.
You really cannot trust a word from Wikipedia on any topic that is more controversial than 5+2 = 7. [...]
Eat less, burn more, and you will lose weight. That's it.
Maybe you need to revisit your opinion of Wikipedia, because you're completely wrong about how losing weight works.
In the short term, you can lose weight by increasing physical activity, but after a while the body catches up and you get back to what it believes to be your adequate weight. I know it's easier to blame fat people than to challenge your own preconceived ideas, that's why people get their panties in a bunch over this.
I shudder to think.
That must be exhausting
Why do you spout such nonsense? Insulin level is trivial to measure. If what you proclaim were actually true it would be obvious and proven.
The level of insulin constantly fluctuates, like the stock market. If you "measure" it at one moment and try again a few minutes later it can vary wildly. That's why most studies are based on insuling level while fasting, to minimize the rollercoaster.
As for things being "obvious and proven", if you take 5 minutes to do a bit of research you will find plenty of studies to support what I mention, and plenty more to discredit the common misconceptions such as "eat less move more to lose weight".
In January I decided I should do something with my weight.
Come back in one year and tell us about it. 6 months is not evidence when it comes to diets; most dieters gain back the weight after 12 to 18 months.
I'm not saying it will happen to you because you seem to go about it in a responsible way, but don't call things BS based on 6 months of personal data.
Without the sugar supply, I get headaches and decreased performance.
This is called "detox".
Carbohydrates and calories have no nutritional value whatsoever?
Calories is a measure of energy, not nutrition. As for carbohydrates, they are not *needed*. They are edible and impact the metabolism, but they are not essential to survive. You could eat cardboard and make it a central part of your diet if you wanted, it wouldn't mean it's something you need. Same goes for carbs.
However you can influence it by looking at your insulin level, e.g. don't eat stuff that is converted super fast into sugar (or is sugar) and combine it with fat.
This has been proven wrong, many times. No diet based on glycemic index has survived actual studies. It is becoming more and more apparent that the level of insulin is caused by obesity, not the other way around.
Did you know that the level of insulin during fasting is higher for obese people? This has been demonstrated time and again, and if you know someone with type-2 diabetes that needs insulin shots, they will confirm to you that it's really difficult to lose weight when you're swimming in insulin, and it's not a matter of being hungry, the body simply won't shed weight.
They did an experiment in the 90s, giving gradually larger doses of insulin to subjects for a period of 6 months while cutting their calorie intake, and yet on average they gained 20 pounds.
There is no pill to fix that. There's some evidence that a diet of mostly high fat and plants with intermittend fasting and intermittent carb days is the best approach. So far it's the best hope because the level of physical activty in the USA has significantly increased at the same time as the level of obesity skyrocketed, so "eat less move more" just doesn't work.
But again, only time will tell.
Hey feel free to subscribe to common misconceptions instead of educating yourself. This whole subject area has been plagued by such shallow beliefs and unproven "truths" that resistance from the lemmings is to be expected when they're presented with new information.
that is actually false. Insulin is a blood sugar chemical reaction not a reaction to what "might" be coming, it is not influenced by what you taste or think.
Instead of guessing things, why don't you document yourself? The amount of insulin that gets released is not based on the actual sugar content of what you eat, it's based on a fairly complex combination of what's in the liver and how the hypothalamus interprets signals.
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
I've been hearing about this for a while. What I do is I always drink sugar-free sweetened beverages together with food (or at least a snack), never by itself.
That's even worse because when aspartame get metabolized by the liver, it creates byproducts that interfere with dietary fat absorption and overall gut health. So whatever you're eating while you drink diet soft drinks is not going to have a smooth ride in your system.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in.
Not necessarily. See Wikipedia:
Brown sugar is a sucrose sugar product with a distinctive brown color due to the presence of molasses. It is either an unrefined or partially refined soft sugar consisting of sugar crystals with some residual molasses content (natural brown sugar), or it is produced by the addition of molasses to refined white sugar (commercial brown sugar).
This causes real sugar to linger in the bloodstream longer before it's processed, although I forgot how that leads to obesity
The prevalent theory is leptin resistance. The point at which the body feels like it's at its appropriate level of fat slowly goes up.
There's also a possibility that insulin resistance wrecks havoc in the hypothalamus, which ultimately leads to unfixable obesity.
But if science is science, then calories in is equal to work done with excess calories becoming weight gained.
This is a simplistic and flawed conclusion. The body is not a closed system that lives in a vacuum with only calories as input/output, it's a lot more complex than that.
Also, calories are not equal. For instance, given a same amount of calories, dietary fat is absorbed a lot more easily by the body than proteins. This doesn't simply mean a difference in energy expenditure, it also means that time is involved.
Here's another example. If you stop eating carbs but you compensate by eating more proteins but not more fatty acids (like omega-3), your body won't go into ketosis, and because your brain can't find neither glucose or ketones to feed itself, it's going to start eating your muscles, not your excess fat. With less muscle your metabolism will progressively slow down. And this can happen no matter how many calories you eat or how many reps you do at the gym.
If they see no advantage in prioritizing health over immediate gratification, then why the hell should they change a damn thing?
Here's the thing: unless you consistently eat busloads of food (like 10,000 calories a day), the quantity of food that you eat doesn't actually impact your weight on the long term. Neither does the amount of exercise you do. The body always adjusts itself to maintain its weight, slowing down or accelerating the metabolism, playing with body temperature, etc. That's why people on a diet are cold or tired, and why fat people sweat more (it's not because of "insulation").
So even if you put those people on a treadmill they're not going to lose much weight, which makes your "delayed gratification" approach useless. You can burn them down and they will temporarily lose weight, but most of it will be lean mass and water, and soon they'll get back to their initial weight.
To lower the target weight, the key is not to exercise more or eat less, it's to gradually increase sensitivity to leptin, by having a carefully tuned rotation of high fat and carbs aspects to the diet.
This is not wishful thinking. See on wikipedia:
Dieters who lose weight, particularly those with an overabundance of fat cells, experience a drop in levels of circulating leptin. This drop causes reversible decreases in thyroid activity, sympathetic tone, and energy expenditure in skeletal muscle, and increases in muscle efficiency and parasympathetic tone. The result is that a person who has lost weight below their natural body fat set-point has a lower basal metabolic rate than an individual at the same weight who is of that natural weight; these changes are leptin-mediated, homeostatic responses meant to reduce energy expenditure and promote weight regain as a result of fat cells being shrunken below normal size.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is even trickier than it looks. The artificial sweeteners are so realistic that they fool the body into thinking that you just drank tons of sugar, so insuline level is adjusted, but since there's no actual sugar it makes you crave sweets.
So yes you probably should use actual sugar, if possible natural sugar (brown) not white processed poison, but if you can progressively dial it down to a point where you don't put sugar at all your body will thank you.
Let's be clear: the body has no need for sugar, it has no nutritional value whatsoever.
Ubuntu Mate [...] *BSD
I sense a pattern of despair and misery.