the way I loosely (I guess strict interpretation would likely just lead to a contradiction) interpreted this is that the algorithms are not directly applicable. In other words, you have to pick a new algorithm to accomplish the same job without incurring some form of a penalty. Maybe I'm wrong, but this makes sense in my world... now I await the reply from the folks who can not tolerate deviation from the strictest rules of language. You know, let me make this easy for them: I am going to
I don't think you understand. The internet and slashdot was an elaborate ploy by Nivens to get more fans. He planted the ideas for the internet a long time ago and nurtured it until the web was born. He then planted the idea to create a forum for nerds. Once this was done he waited for critical mass and posted this line. Now people like me who stopped reading fiction some time ago, will see this name and investigate on the very same internet! Its rather brilliant. The only thing is that if we comply and read, then he will no longer have a use for the internet and will likely have it taken down (his purpose being completed). To prevent the destruction of this invaluable tool, I will boycott reading any further.
and with my first paranoid rant done, I am ready to start my day!
employed - as in hired - as in the oil companies are part of my minions - as in an attempt to tell a joke which situates me as a diabolical genius (or complete idiot) that will melt the worlds icecaps for clean water.
Earth is also a closed ecosystem where we breath in the burnt remains of food ingested by our neighbors, where tap water is derived from the same lakes and streams that animals use as public toilets. Just because the filtration occurs further away and uses some natural bedrock, doesn't make it any different.
Once you have just steam, it can no longer be considered urine, so drinking water is made from condensed steam
I for one plan on no longer partaking in this twisted backwards environment. Long ago I employed the oil companies to convince the ignorant masses to emit large quantities of CO2 - in an elaborate plot to raise global temperatures and melt the pristine icecaps which I will then route into my drinking water. Furthermore, I will destroy this insane ecosystem that exists in this evil urine drinking manner. You may wonder why I am willing to so freely say this, but what can you do about it? What can you do! mu-hahaha.
I guess using the breeze would be better because you won't have to worry about what to do once the metal leads have been fully reduced/oxidized. Its been too long since I have worked with this stuff to really remember it well enough. Wouldn't there be friction with any wind based methods that would eventually destroy the device? We need something that can last longer.
Well, don't they do that already with potatos (potatoes for vice presidents)? If you do this with the potato still in the ground, will it continue to regenerate? I think you have a project to work on...
I think the disconnect is in the way "success" is measured and achieved. In athletics there is one measure of success - winning the event/competition you are in. The same does not hold true in academics, so supply demand - the determinant of pay, work very differently. In the sports league, the teams have to compete for the talent, but then can pick and choose the fillers from a large recruiting pool (financially worthless) In academics, people compete for the position (regargless of how difficult it is to get a PhD, there are usually more than one person being considered for the top spot at the nations top universities). also, my point was the sudden jump in paygrade - the minor and club leagues do not really pay much as compared to someone who has achieved a doctorate. Once an athelete achieves a certain skill level, he now becomes highly recruited and the pay increases exponentially.
The fact that the patent and copyright systems are broken, it doesn't change the intent. I brought it up as a potential means of fixing the system. Stating how its broken is a first step, but one that has been stated repeatedly. The only "solution" I have ever heard here is "get rid of it". Perhaps middle ground? End corporate copyrights and patents? Reinstitute realistic limits on copyright terms?
There are people in academics making a considerable amount of money (if that is to be our measure of success) - including some who make more than some professional athletes. Like in sports, your ability to make revenue is the underpinning of how you will be paid/recruited. People able to obtain multi-million dollar grants for the univeristy will suddenly become more popular and if not locked into a long term contract, they can make considerable demands as a "free agent".
The fact that the public doesn't care is not in and of itself surprising. Sports are targeted at the masses - academics are not - with the exception of publications like popular science.
Perhaps, more academic competitions with more real prizes in school would change this. People like winning and people like winners. Give those who excel the opportunity to be seen as "better" or you will not get people to want to join that rank. Its the nature of competition and a back bone of our society. Even at a local level, it has a huge impact.
not sure where I was going with this post... probably would have been better in different threads. oh yes, bill G - statements like yours hit the ears of the public as jealousy. People never hear/see that side in the papers - the anti-trust case got little mainstream attention and was often spun as "you can't be too successful or that evil government will get ya".
how I wish there was a way to carve an existing post into various threads....
It already is; people just don't see the connection. Strength in math has done wonders for my career. It has allowed me to take on projects that would not otherwise be available to me.
The problem is related to probability in a way. Success at sports is highly rewarded but difficult to achieve (as defined by a standard of playing in a professional league at a national level). In academics, success (attainment of a graduate degree) is easier (number of people able to reach the goal) to achieve though still a difficult task.
What would promote "stronger" academics would be a pay grade within the academic realm for achievements.
Also, keep in mind that the patent and copyright system were designed to do exactly what you are saying. Promotion of the arts and sciences is why people are supposed to get exclusive rights to "their" idea. It is up to them to profit from it. There is an opportunity for success, but the problem is the link between the success and the academics is missing.
and to rile the anti-MS crowd a bit - Bill Gates is considered by many (of the non-programming crowd) to be the biggest nerd/genius in this respect. That is what a competitive academic environment would entail.
(sorry for my over- and mis-use of parenthesis)... (actually I'm not, but thought I would appologize anyways).
In a way, this does lend credence to how much of a joke ISO is/has become. The fact that people saw what MS was doing and countered in a like-wise fashion does not dismiss the flaw, but only highlights it. OOXML being accepted wasn't the fundamental problem - it was the means by which it passed. This still draws attention to how broken the system is.
lets by the gp argument and suppose these people did come by to block ooxml. Lets assume these people were able to successfully block the passage of OOXML through ISO. Is this truly a better outcome? ISO is still broken. We still have a bunch of people sitting on a technical comittee that are there for a political agenda on one issue rather than on truly defining usable standards.
GP did not clarify how these people got this job. Did they sign up? were they elected? did they buy into it? Being vocal about something is not itself a sign that they joined principly to block ooxml.
Furthermore, this is a distraction from the bigger picture - the irregularities amongst iso in following its own rules in the passage of ooxml. these people were drawing attention to that occurance. Regardless of whether or not they supported ooxml, they have raised legitamate issues and in this context, this is more a smear to their character than an argument against their point - aka argumentum ad hominem
I hate to be the one to say it, but those kids really do mess up the lawn. you put in all that work and then they bring in their bikes and their cleats and just destroy your.. um.. I mean old peoples hard work.
Well, I guess it all depends on how you define life... Most of these things are more semantic and issues because of our desire to fit things into categories.
What's intersting is that prions in principle are similar to digestive enzymes in a way. Trypsin forms trypsin from trypsinogen in a self catalzying reaction. At the same time other enzymes may activate it as well. - Would you consider trypsin to be alive?
The fact that prions exist as a pathology is interesting though. Furthermore, it points to the complexity of life and cells - the notion of what came first. Proteins are needed to transcribe DNA and to assist in the final layout of the newly formed protein, but the basic design of the proteins are held in that same DNA.
I will be more impressed when they find proteins that can seqence proteins into self similar molecules rather than something that comes into being by cleaving a larger protein from which it is derived.
I feel I need to clarify one point a bit better. - why I would pull selective research regarding high protein intake.
1 - the plethera of literature on both sides 2 - the lack of known adverse events to limiting excess protein intake in those with normal renal function and those without 3 - was being lazy (certainly not the best reasoning but the truth)
your counterpoint saying this is equivalent to giving everyone insulin is off base in that it is already known that limited (note - not low, but limited) protein intake is not harmful to the body, so deducing if excess is harmful proves nothing to the counterpoint. Exogenous insulin administration in nondiabetics is known to be harmful - not equivalent cases.
a better illustration of your point may be sun exposure and saying excess sun exposure in Caucasians is harmful, and limiting sun exposure in those with darker skin (which would increase the risk of osteoporosis). That is why I cede that point, but as of now, I doubt there is harm to any specific population by imposing a reasonable limit on protein consumption.
btw, is there a venue to continue this discussion outside of slashdot (I normally don't post on boards this long)? I am interesting in getting more information on your point of view on this topic and why you hold such views, but feel this is a bit much to continue posting on/.
well, it seems we have the source of our disagreement. As long as you refrain from equating "eat less" with it doesn't matter what the content of the diet is, then I have no contention.
The origin of eat less, exercise more is the fact that the majority of people that need to lose weight eat an excess calorie diet and/or have a sedentary life style. Those that do not tend to have a higher degree of secondary causes of weight gain requiring medical intervention.
I'll admit I tried to pull a fast one with that article - and I will cede that there is currently contradictory evidence both linking and showing independence of high protein in diets.
Also, can you site where you get this notion that a high sugar diet is being pushed? This is the first I am hearing of this and am genuinely interested on the source of this info. The source for a lot of what I have been taught comes from this site: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/AppendixA.htm#appA3 which has a considerable portion of caloric intake coming from carbohydrates, but it doesn't seem to be that extreme to me.
The entire concept of what is healthy is in constant flux due to increasing understanding of metabolism and the acceptance that weight control is not the end all. Most professionals readily acknowledge this and incorporate it into their practice.
As for the food industry, they just push what they can get people to buy, but even here, I am not sure what you are getting at. Any citations/references would be useful for me.
come now, you had time to RTFA, but you didn't want to. Now, I am not making any accusations because I too "didn't have time" to RTFA, but apparently we both have time to post. You know, posting first def gives more chances for glory. If yours was an already stated thought then hey, you didn't read thearticle, but if you are right... well then. insight and more importantly, insight without help. of course, when you have nothing, or don't feel like putting forth anything, you can always go for funny. It works well for the self-esteem.
I am willing to stand by my statement that reducing caloric intake will help in weightloss. Perhaps what I should have done is qualify it with the statement that there are other metabolic and nutritional concerns that need to be simultaneously addressed.
The essence of what I am saying is portion reduction. In other words, forgoing a shift in proportions - ie, don't overdo any one category of food in order to shift metabolism, but maintain a balance at a lower caloric intake.
You can find similar data on almost all forms of diets that take too highly from one category. If I conveyed that other concerns aren't important than I am sorry, but it still doesn't change my point of view, nor does anything that you have put forth done anything to change it. I have extensively read the medical literature on this subject and continue to do so.
I make my claim secondary to considerations of compliance with diet, outcomes measured by the use of each diet as well as the ease that each can be done.
Furthermore, I refer anyone with additional medical concerns to a nutritionist if it is necessary. I have had plenty of people report good outcomes though most continue being noncompliant with a diet.
I have also found that keeping things simple for the lay person is often necessary to ensure compliance and to ease understanding of the subject.
When working to change someones diet, you need a concrete starting point. To say that "its complicated" may not be sufficient. While saying cut calories and increase exercise may not provide sufficient information, anything more would require feedback on a one to one basis.
I have never advocated extreme diets such as Atkins though I have used them personally with success. It just does not seem to be a physiologic way to reach the desired goals of prolonging a healthy lifespan.
as for what I meant by "the diet" in that statement, I was considering established, published diets - not home grown diets, so at least I know the source of your statements, and will say that I agree with you in that "the diet" is important in that sense. My main point was what I posted later - the Jama article (reference posted earlier) that had compared a few established diets and showed similar efficacy.
If you consider this back pedaling, than so be it and thank you for clarifying this point. It just hadn't occurred to me that you were interpreting that statement in such a fashion.
well, I know I glossed over a lot of details, but that basic principle holds true across the board - and applies to methods not including calorie restriction. The actual ways to achieve these have been described by others in this discussion.
If one wanted to get into the nitty-gritty, one could also include subtleties such as timing of meals and exercise along with duration of exercise at one stretch because these all influence metabolic rates beyond the time course of their occurrence.
I just didn't think that/. was the venue for such a discussion.
Let me ask you this, when someone says "eat less", how does that translate to "drink only alcohol"? anyway, you wanted information on calorie restriction, here you go: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/1/43 - shows equivalence of various diets though attrition rates do vary. Overall one of the best studies of its type currently available in the medical literature.
In all the diets studied, there is either a change in metabolism enabling increased energy (calorie) loss or there is a limit on its intake.
bottom line - energy must be conserved, the actual diet itself appears to be less meaningful in how it is achieved. Also, please don't assume I mean all diets provide alternative necessary nutrients to maintain a healthy life.
I never claimed that you can choose anyone type of intake - only that reducing calories intake below consumption was required - as in necessary - not sufficient. Nor did I elaborate on any safe way to accomplish this task. And I do believe I made the claim of the heart specifically preferring fatty acids in my grandparent post.
and the statement "all it took" is as much an oversimplification as any other. Calorie restriction is not an easy thing to do, and I never claimed that it was. Diversity of intake is a prerequisite to avoid a long list of diseases related to malnutrition such as kwashiorkor, beri-beri, scurvey, marasmus, rickets, osteomalcia, etc. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here to be honest. Personally, it seems you are just being argumentative, but I will stick with my original point - to lose weight, calories in must be less than calories out. Other issues of nutrition not withstanding.
I beg to differ and site conservation of energy as my reason. Something tells me that you have flaws in your notion of how a body is designed. The calories you take in are from component chemicals - carbohydrates generally provide 4 calories per gram, fat 9, protein 4, alcohol 7calories/gram. All bodily activities from your basal metabolic rate (energy burn for homeostasis at rest) to exercise require energy provided by these substances. If the total energy expenditure in sum exceeds intake YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT. This is a fundamental principle. I don't know what you mean by its "possible to kill yourself by using your 'simple' equation", but starvation does cause death my friend. If your body "refuses" to release fat for energy use that would indeed make exercise difficult. There is usually a delay between your body releasing fat and its utilization, but it does happen. Anything else would be a fairly horrendous disease - see lysosomal storage diseases for more info. Moreover, failure to release basic fats would likely lead to very early death as it would be necessary in pretty much any fasting state.
take a quick look at the wiki page on cardiac muscle and look at the basal energy useage - its fat.
The distribution of the food between compartments of the body is irrelevant to this basic concept that occurs in everyone and all energy consuming systems. Compartment models are only relevant when assessing quantities within one compartment - say serum potassium levels. Intake and output are only part of the equation. most body potassium lies intracellularly and thus movement into and out of this compartment must be accounted for.
I suggest that before you claim someone is "absolutely wrong", you should know the subject matter a bit better.
there is another way to look at this. Calories in > Calories out == weight gain. Calories in = calories out == maintenance and the last one calories in calories out == weight loss.
The type of food and amount of activity needed to obtain these ratios will vary from one person to another, but that is more a matter of compliance and calories restriction/increased activity that is done.
A small person who increases their activity with a low basal calorie intake may accomplish a lot with exercise whereas a heavy relatively active person will see slim return likely secondary to a higher calorie requirement at baseline.
Bottom line is that its not really the diet that you choose to lose weight, but the reduction in calories.
There are secondary considerations that need to be taken into account - which if you see a physician will be brought up - including hypertension, diabetes and serum cholesterol.
Interesting that you get labelled troll when all you did was illustrate an unpopular point.
To counter this, I put forth that the doomsayers may spur innovation by motivating people to overcome this "disaster". This can lead to real advances even if that disaster was not coming.
Secondly, this weird association people make between our use of technology and global warming... From everything I have seen, there isn't any real strong evidence that we are causing it - or that anything should be done to prevent it.
Maybe the key is learning to live with it and adapting to change instead of fortifying ourselves against a cycle that the earth has gone through numerous times?
I too have been worried about Godzilla of late. Then I realized, that there is a rock in my backyard and that the whole time the rock has been there, Godzilla never attacked my home! Its amazing, but its true. I am willing to sell you this rock and take the risk of a Godzilla attack because I feel its only fair that others may benefit. I must charge for it, so that I may use the funds to research other anti-Godzilla measures and fund my anti-bear attack research. Let me know if you are interested.
I agree with your sentiment that cameras may not provide security, but I think its too early to say
The difference between cameras in public and other forms of intrusion is the knowledge that the camera is present. People don't have expectations of privacy in public areas. If there was a cop standing on the street corner, would you take offense? How about a cop on every street corner?
Its one thing to bitch about a camera in public and another to provide a means to resecure an area that is so run down that even the best of people start to feel obeying the law isn't necessary.
Personally, I would love to see these cameras opened up, so anyone is free to view - keeps politicians and law enforcement honest... Google street view Ultimate edition
Going back to the first point, I don't feel these cameras negatively impact liberty, so don't find them to be a burden.
What is burdensome is a system of random security checks at an airport with selective "random" invasion of privacy that leads to countless delays. What is burdensome is being on a government watch list for flights. What is burdensome is a civil court system that can destroy a persons life without the level of proof required for criminal defense. There are plenty of issues that undermine freedom in real ways. I support the city in this goal of cleaning up the city. The liberties lost are those that infringe on the rights of others.
If I am not mistaken, its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that people drone on about. Unsafe streets interfere with the first and third enough to impose a little on the second. A vigilant public and a demand of transparency should be maintained.
Slashdot Mirror
the way I loosely (I guess strict interpretation would likely just lead to a contradiction) interpreted this is that the algorithms are not directly applicable. In other words, you have to pick a new algorithm to accomplish the same job without incurring some form of a penalty. Maybe I'm wrong, but this makes sense in my world... now I await the reply from the folks who can not tolerate deviation from the strictest rules of language. You know, let me make this easy for them: I am going to
I don't think you understand. The internet and slashdot was an elaborate ploy by Nivens to get more fans. He planted the ideas for the internet a long time ago and nurtured it until the web was born. He then planted the idea to create a forum for nerds. Once this was done he waited for critical mass and posted this line. Now people like me who stopped reading fiction some time ago, will see this name and investigate on the very same internet! Its rather brilliant. The only thing is that if we comply and read, then he will no longer have a use for the internet and will likely have it taken down (his purpose being completed). To prevent the destruction of this invaluable tool, I will boycott reading any further.
and with my first paranoid rant done, I am ready to start my day!
employed - as in hired - as in the oil companies are part of my minions - as in an attempt to tell a joke which situates me as a diabolical genius (or complete idiot) that will melt the worlds icecaps for clean water.
Earth is also a closed ecosystem where we breath in the burnt remains of food ingested by our neighbors, where tap water is derived from the same lakes and streams that animals use as public toilets. Just because the filtration occurs further away and uses some natural bedrock, doesn't make it any different.
Once you have just steam, it can no longer be considered urine, so drinking water is made from condensed steam
I for one plan on no longer partaking in this twisted backwards environment. Long ago I employed the oil companies to convince the ignorant masses to emit large quantities of CO2 - in an elaborate plot to raise global temperatures and melt the pristine icecaps which I will then route into my drinking water. Furthermore, I will destroy this insane ecosystem that exists in this evil urine drinking manner. You may wonder why I am willing to so freely say this, but what can you do about it? What can you do! mu-hahaha.
anyone know what we were talking about?
I guess using the breeze would be better because you won't have to worry about what to do once the metal leads have been fully reduced/oxidized. Its been too long since I have worked with this stuff to really remember it well enough. Wouldn't there be friction with any wind based methods that would eventually destroy the device? We need something that can last longer.
Well, don't they do that already with potatos (potatoes for vice presidents)? If you do this with the potato still in the ground, will it continue to regenerate? I think you have a project to work on...
I think the disconnect is in the way "success" is measured and achieved. In athletics there is one measure of success - winning the event/competition you are in. The same does not hold true in academics, so supply demand - the determinant of pay, work very differently. In the sports league, the teams have to compete for the talent, but then can pick and choose the fillers from a large recruiting pool (financially worthless)
In academics, people compete for the position (regargless of how difficult it is to get a PhD, there are usually more than one person being considered for the top spot at the nations top universities). also, my point was the sudden jump in paygrade - the minor and club leagues do not really pay much as compared to someone who has achieved a doctorate. Once an athelete achieves a certain skill level, he now becomes highly recruited and the pay increases exponentially.
The fact that the patent and copyright systems are broken, it doesn't change the intent. I brought it up as a potential means of fixing the system. Stating how its broken is a first step, but one that has been stated repeatedly. The only "solution" I have ever heard here is "get rid of it". Perhaps middle ground? End corporate copyrights and patents? Reinstitute realistic limits on copyright terms?
There are people in academics making a considerable amount of money (if that is to be our measure of success) - including some who make more than some professional athletes. Like in sports, your ability to make revenue is the underpinning of how you will be paid/recruited. People able to obtain multi-million dollar grants for the univeristy will suddenly become more popular and if not locked into a long term contract, they can make considerable demands as a "free agent".
The fact that the public doesn't care is not in and of itself surprising. Sports are targeted at the masses - academics are not - with the exception of publications like popular science.
Perhaps, more academic competitions with more real prizes in school would change this. People like winning and people like winners. Give those who excel the opportunity to be seen as "better" or you will not get people to want to join that rank. Its the nature of competition and a back bone of our society. Even at a local level, it has a huge impact.
not sure where I was going with this post... probably would have been better in different threads. oh yes, bill G - statements like yours hit the ears of the public as jealousy. People never hear/see that side in the papers - the anti-trust case got little mainstream attention and was often spun as "you can't be too successful or that evil government will get ya".
how I wish there was a way to carve an existing post into various threads....
It already is; people just don't see the connection. Strength in math has done wonders for my career. It has allowed me to take on projects that would not otherwise be available to me.
The problem is related to probability in a way. Success at sports is highly rewarded but difficult to achieve (as defined by a standard of playing in a professional league at a national level). In academics, success (attainment of a graduate degree) is easier (number of people able to reach the goal) to achieve though still a difficult task.
What would promote "stronger" academics would be a pay grade within the academic realm for achievements.
Also, keep in mind that the patent and copyright system were designed to do exactly what you are saying. Promotion of the arts and sciences is why people are supposed to get exclusive rights to "their" idea. It is up to them to profit from it. There is an opportunity for success, but the problem is the link between the success and the academics is missing.
and to rile the anti-MS crowd a bit - Bill Gates is considered by many (of the non-programming crowd) to be the biggest nerd/genius in this respect. That is what a competitive academic environment would entail.
(sorry for my over- and mis-use of parenthesis)... (actually I'm not, but thought I would appologize anyways).
what the meta-moderation are you talking about?
In a way, this does lend credence to how much of a joke ISO is/has become. The fact that people saw what MS was doing and countered in a like-wise fashion does not dismiss the flaw, but only highlights it. OOXML being accepted wasn't the fundamental problem - it was the means by which it passed. This still draws attention to how broken the system is.
lets by the gp argument and suppose these people did come by to block ooxml. Lets assume these people were able to successfully block the passage of OOXML through ISO. Is this truly a better outcome? ISO is still broken. We still have a bunch of people sitting on a technical comittee that are there for a political agenda on one issue rather than on truly defining usable standards.
GP did not clarify how these people got this job. Did they sign up? were they elected? did they buy into it? Being vocal about something is not itself a sign that they joined principly to block ooxml.
Furthermore, this is a distraction from the bigger picture - the irregularities amongst iso in following its own rules in the passage of ooxml. these people were drawing attention to that occurance. Regardless of whether or not they supported ooxml, they have raised legitamate issues and in this context, this is more a smear to their character than an argument against their point - aka argumentum ad hominem
... "and that's why you need an advanced degree to even play that game..."
No, you need an advanced degree because the law requires it... though you might want to ask a lawyer about that.
I hate to be the one to say it, but those kids really do mess up the lawn. you put in all that work and then they bring in their bikes and their cleats and just destroy your.. um.. I mean old peoples hard work.
Well, I guess it all depends on how you define life... Most of these things are more semantic and issues because of our desire to fit things into categories. What's intersting is that prions in principle are similar to digestive enzymes in a way. Trypsin forms trypsin from trypsinogen in a self catalzying reaction. At the same time other enzymes may activate it as well. - Would you consider trypsin to be alive? The fact that prions exist as a pathology is interesting though. Furthermore, it points to the complexity of life and cells - the notion of what came first. Proteins are needed to transcribe DNA and to assist in the final layout of the newly formed protein, but the basic design of the proteins are held in that same DNA. I will be more impressed when they find proteins that can seqence proteins into self similar molecules rather than something that comes into being by cleaving a larger protein from which it is derived.
ok,
I feel I need to clarify one point a bit better. - why I would pull selective research regarding high protein intake.
1 - the plethera of literature on both sides
2 - the lack of known adverse events to limiting excess protein intake in those with normal renal function and those without
3 - was being lazy (certainly not the best reasoning but the truth)
your counterpoint saying this is equivalent to giving everyone insulin is off base in that it is already known that limited (note - not low, but limited) protein intake is not harmful to the body, so deducing if excess is harmful proves nothing to the counterpoint. Exogenous insulin administration in nondiabetics is known to be harmful - not equivalent cases.
a better illustration of your point may be sun exposure and saying excess sun exposure in Caucasians is harmful, and limiting sun exposure in those with darker skin (which would increase the risk of osteoporosis). That is why I cede that point, but as of now, I doubt there is harm to any specific population by imposing a reasonable limit on protein consumption.
btw, is there a venue to continue this discussion outside of slashdot (I normally don't post on boards this long)? I am interesting in getting more information on your point of view on this topic and why you hold such views, but feel this is a bit much to continue posting on /.
- Eat less, exercise more IS an extreme diet.
well, it seems we have the source of our disagreement. As long as you refrain from equating "eat less" with it doesn't matter what the content of the diet is, then I have no contention.
The origin of eat less, exercise more is the fact that the majority of people that need to lose weight eat an excess calorie diet and/or have a sedentary life style. Those that do not tend to have a higher degree of secondary causes of weight gain requiring medical intervention.
I'll admit I tried to pull a fast one with that article - and I will cede that there is currently contradictory evidence both linking and showing independence of high protein in diets.
Also, can you site where you get this notion that a high sugar diet is being pushed? This is the first I am hearing of this and am genuinely interested on the source of this info. The source for a lot of what I have been taught comes from this site: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/AppendixA.htm#appA3
which has a considerable portion of caloric intake coming from carbohydrates, but it doesn't seem to be that extreme to me.
The entire concept of what is healthy is in constant flux due to increasing understanding of metabolism and the acceptance that weight control is not the end all. Most professionals readily acknowledge this and incorporate it into their practice.
As for the food industry, they just push what they can get people to buy, but even here, I am not sure what you are getting at. Any citations/references would be useful for me.
come now, you had time to RTFA, but you didn't want to. Now, I am not making any accusations because I too "didn't have time" to RTFA, but apparently we both have time to post. You know, posting first def gives more chances for glory. If yours was an already stated thought then hey, you didn't read thearticle, but if you are right... well then. insight and more importantly, insight without help. of course, when you have nothing, or don't feel like putting forth anything, you can always go for funny. It works well for the self-esteem.
I am willing to stand by my statement that reducing caloric intake will help in weightloss. Perhaps what I should have done is qualify it with the statement that there are other metabolic and nutritional concerns that need to be simultaneously addressed.
The essence of what I am saying is portion reduction. In other words, forgoing a shift in proportions - ie, don't overdo any one category of food in order to shift metabolism, but maintain a balance at a lower caloric intake.
an article on high protein intake
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18267211?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
You can find similar data on almost all forms of diets that take too highly from one category. If I conveyed that other concerns aren't important than I am sorry, but it still doesn't change my point of view, nor does anything that you have put forth done anything to change it. I have extensively read the medical literature on this subject and continue to do so.
I make my claim secondary to considerations of compliance with diet, outcomes measured by the use of each diet as well as the ease that each can be done.
Furthermore, I refer anyone with additional medical concerns to a nutritionist if it is necessary. I have had plenty of people report good outcomes though most continue being noncompliant with a diet.
I have also found that keeping things simple for the lay person is often necessary to ensure compliance and to ease understanding of the subject.
When working to change someones diet, you need a concrete starting point. To say that "its complicated" may not be sufficient. While saying cut calories and increase exercise may not provide sufficient information, anything more would require feedback on a one to one basis.
I have never advocated extreme diets such as Atkins though I have used them personally with success. It just does not seem to be a physiologic way to reach the desired goals of prolonging a healthy lifespan.
as for what I meant by "the diet" in that statement, I was considering established, published diets - not home grown diets, so at least I know the source of your statements, and will say that I agree with you in that "the diet" is important in that sense. My main point was what I posted later - the Jama article (reference posted earlier) that had compared a few established diets and showed similar efficacy.
If you consider this back pedaling, than so be it and thank you for clarifying this point. It just hadn't occurred to me that you were interpreting that statement in such a fashion.
well, I know I glossed over a lot of details, but that basic principle holds true across the board - and applies to methods not including calorie restriction. The actual ways to achieve these have been described by others in this discussion.
If one wanted to get into the nitty-gritty, one could also include subtleties such as timing of meals and exercise along with duration of exercise at one stretch because these all influence metabolic rates beyond the time course of their occurrence.
I just didn't think that /. was the venue for such a discussion.
Let me ask you this, when someone says "eat less", how does that translate to "drink only alcohol"?
anyway, you wanted information on calorie restriction, here you go:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/1/43 - shows equivalence of various diets though attrition rates do vary. Overall one of the best studies of its type currently available in the medical literature.
a small study showing benefits of calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18602635?ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
on the following page about Atkins, please take a look at the section on ketones and increased calorie loss - which balances the higher calorie intake.
http://www.publix.com/wellness/notes/Display.do?id=Diet&childId=Atkins_Diet
In all the diets studied, there is either a change in metabolism enabling increased energy (calorie) loss or there is a limit on its intake.
bottom line - energy must be conserved, the actual diet itself appears to be less meaningful in how it is achieved. Also, please don't assume I mean all diets provide alternative necessary nutrients to maintain a healthy life.
I never claimed that you can choose anyone type of intake - only that reducing calories intake below consumption was required - as in necessary - not sufficient. Nor did I elaborate on any safe way to accomplish this task. And I do believe I made the claim of the heart specifically preferring fatty acids in my grandparent post. and the statement "all it took" is as much an oversimplification as any other. Calorie restriction is not an easy thing to do, and I never claimed that it was. Diversity of intake is a prerequisite to avoid a long list of diseases related to malnutrition such as kwashiorkor, beri-beri, scurvey, marasmus, rickets, osteomalcia, etc. I am not sure what point you are trying to make here to be honest. Personally, it seems you are just being argumentative, but I will stick with my original point - to lose weight, calories in must be less than calories out. Other issues of nutrition not withstanding.
I beg to differ and site conservation of energy as my reason. Something tells me that you have flaws in your notion of how a body is designed. The calories you take in are from component chemicals - carbohydrates generally provide 4 calories per gram, fat 9, protein 4, alcohol 7calories/gram. All bodily activities from your basal metabolic rate (energy burn for homeostasis at rest) to exercise require energy provided by these substances. If the total energy expenditure in sum exceeds intake YOU WILL LOSE WEIGHT. This is a fundamental principle. I don't know what you mean by its "possible to kill yourself by using your 'simple' equation", but starvation does cause death my friend. If your body "refuses" to release fat for energy use that would indeed make exercise difficult. There is usually a delay between your body releasing fat and its utilization, but it does happen. Anything else would be a fairly horrendous disease - see lysosomal storage diseases for more info. Moreover, failure to release basic fats would likely lead to very early death as it would be necessary in pretty much any fasting state.
take a quick look at the wiki page on cardiac muscle and look at the basal energy useage - its fat.
The distribution of the food between compartments of the body is irrelevant to this basic concept that occurs in everyone and all energy consuming systems. Compartment models are only relevant when assessing quantities within one compartment - say serum potassium levels. Intake and output are only part of the equation. most body potassium lies intracellularly and thus movement into and out of this compartment must be accounted for.
I suggest that before you claim someone is "absolutely wrong", you should know the subject matter a bit better.
Well,
there is another way to look at this. Calories in > Calories out == weight gain. Calories in = calories out == maintenance and the last one calories in calories out == weight loss.
The type of food and amount of activity needed to obtain these ratios will vary from one person to another, but that is more a matter of compliance and calories restriction/increased activity that is done.
A small person who increases their activity with a low basal calorie intake may accomplish a lot with exercise whereas a heavy relatively active person will see slim return likely secondary to a higher calorie requirement at baseline.
Bottom line is that its not really the diet that you choose to lose weight, but the reduction in calories.
There are secondary considerations that need to be taken into account - which if you see a physician will be brought up - including hypertension, diabetes and serum cholesterol.
Interesting that you get labelled troll when all you did was illustrate an unpopular point.
To counter this, I put forth that the doomsayers may spur innovation by motivating people to overcome this "disaster". This can lead to real advances even if that disaster was not coming.
Secondly, this weird association people make between our use of technology and global warming... From everything I have seen, there isn't any real strong evidence that we are causing it - or that anything should be done to prevent it.
Maybe the key is learning to live with it and adapting to change instead of fortifying ourselves against a cycle that the earth has gone through numerous times?
I too have been worried about Godzilla of late. Then I realized, that there is a rock in my backyard and that the whole time the rock has been there, Godzilla never attacked my home! Its amazing, but its true. I am willing to sell you this rock and take the risk of a Godzilla attack because I feel its only fair that others may benefit. I must charge for it, so that I may use the funds to research other anti-Godzilla measures and fund my anti-bear attack research. Let me know if you are interested.
I agree with your sentiment that cameras may not provide security, but I think its too early to say The difference between cameras in public and other forms of intrusion is the knowledge that the camera is present. People don't have expectations of privacy in public areas. If there was a cop standing on the street corner, would you take offense? How about a cop on every street corner? Its one thing to bitch about a camera in public and another to provide a means to resecure an area that is so run down that even the best of people start to feel obeying the law isn't necessary. Personally, I would love to see these cameras opened up, so anyone is free to view - keeps politicians and law enforcement honest... Google street view Ultimate edition Going back to the first point, I don't feel these cameras negatively impact liberty, so don't find them to be a burden. What is burdensome is a system of random security checks at an airport with selective "random" invasion of privacy that leads to countless delays. What is burdensome is being on a government watch list for flights. What is burdensome is a civil court system that can destroy a persons life without the level of proof required for criminal defense. There are plenty of issues that undermine freedom in real ways. I support the city in this goal of cleaning up the city. The liberties lost are those that infringe on the rights of others. If I am not mistaken, its "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that people drone on about. Unsafe streets interfere with the first and third enough to impose a little on the second. A vigilant public and a demand of transparency should be maintained.