i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


>> ^draak13:

Dude...this is what happens when physicists think they're neurologists.
You should write up a proposal on that fiend of gravity idea and send it in to NIH. You could propose an experiment to replace the actual science, real observations, and real experimental work that she went through. You could describe how the solitons traveling down the neural pathway are intercepted by the higgs field, causing the altered hormone levels and improvements in interview scores that she observed. You could then go on to say how all of that was not an idea worth spreading, because surely nobody would benefit from performing better in interviews and presentations.
Come off it, man. This was the best TED I've ever heard, and everyone who listened to it, except for you, is a better person for it.
>> ^criticalthud:
Our neurology dictates our tendencies, which includes our structure and our posture.
Amy -a good try from a psych/freudian perspective but this is probably not an idea worth spreading.
a better idea worth spreading is that your neurological system is a pressure based, fluid system that is still trying hard to adapt to being upright, and in the process must deal with a myriad of pressure distortions within that occur as the body, over time and trauma, distorts in the field of gravity.

Dude...this is what happens when physicists think they're neurologists.

You should write up a proposal on that fiend of gravity idea and send it in to NIH. You could propose an experiment to replace the actual science, real observations, and real experimental work that she went through. You could describe how the solitons traveling down the neural pathway are intercepted by the higgs field, causing the altered hormone levels and improvements in interview scores that she observed. You could then go on to say how all of that was not an idea worth spreading, because surely nobody would benefit from performing better in interviews and presentations.

Come off it, man. This was the best TED I've ever heard, and everyone who listened to it, except for you, is a better person for it.

>> ^criticalthud:

Our neurology dictates our tendencies, which includes our structure and our posture.
Amy -a good try from a psych/freudian perspective but this is probably not an idea worth spreading.
a better idea worth spreading is that your neurological system is a pressure based, fluid system that is still trying hard to adapt to being upright, and in the process must deal with a myriad of pressure distortions within that occur as the body, over time and trauma, distorts in the field of gravity.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I'm in the same boat as @hpqp. I also really don't get IVF. If you really want a child and you can't conceive, why not adopt?
My wife and I did go through fertility treatments (and yes, that and a hefty dose of chance contributed to the outcome of triplets), but only hormone injections and IUI. However, we had decided that if it came down to trying IVF, we were going to adopt. That said, I can see why some might choose that route. We wanted a child who was ours biologically, and we decided how far we were willing to go for that outcome.
>> ^chingalera:
Damn Ted, I feel ya brother, what a wirlwinfd of excitement and trepidation you must be a-wigglin' with right now!! Congratulations and Best Wishes!!
Advice: They have support groups for expecting fathers for gentlemen as such in your state of... uncertainty. I hear they're proctored by fathers of cheerleaders and career airline stewardesses
Thanks for the sentiment, but I'll say I have a peace about it. I know that it's likely to be the most challenging years of my life, and I can't say I'm not anxious, but it is what it is. We almost certainly couldn't handle it by ourselves, and we're thankful that we won't have to. Our friends and families are there for us, and we're so grateful to them for it.

This program makes a bold point about hormone and chemical levels being much more strongly correlated with longevity than is likely to be the case. There are a lot of other factors that contribute to premature aging and susceptibility to certain illnesses and diseases, diet, exercise, and lifestyle among them.

To be sure, fasting is probably not a terrible idea for most of those of us who have been brought up eating a Western diet. There's probably something to be said for the human body failing to evolve quickly enough to adapt to the continuous supply of sugary, salty, and fatty foods on a nearly 24/7/365 basis -- rather than the feast/famine environment during the first million years of its evolution... But a switch to eating real foods, not too much, and mostly vegetables is clearly a good way to go.

"Imagine having to make a decision to put down your 19 year old son or daughter. That's probably pretty close to how the guy feels about his dog"

No. It. Is. Not.

As for the other responses, the "will to live/eat" argument, I call bullshit. Every living thing has survival instincts, thats why they exist in the first place. But dogs do not on a human level understand the connection between eating and surviving, they do not stop eating because they've "lost the will to live". That is us, humans, antropomorphising the dogs brain. They dont have that same cognitive future-predicting brain we do. They dont make that kind of connection. Whatever triggers the "i'm gonna stop eating and go die" behaviour is probably connected with dogs and wolves pack behaviour, which would be triggered because the dog "knows" that its would slow down the pack, and thus decides to leave. This would however not be knowledge, but evolved pack behaviour, and is unreliable to determine whether the dog has a worthy life. This behaviour could also be triggered in false alarm cases, such as hormones during or after mating seasons and so forth, one week later and the dog is happy as ever.

What is clear, is that this dog, in the video, cannot run anymore, it cannot fetch, search or do anything that stimulates its brain anymore. A dog thats being fed by an owner every day do not have the evolutionary history, nor the brains, to decide that this isnt a life worth living. Which is excactly were the dogs owners brain is supposed to come in: The dog eats because its hungry, it drinks because its thirsty. In more aspects than ever, its being artificially kept alive , as most dogs are most of their life, because they are domesticated and are thus useless hunters/scavengers, but they can still be happy and pain free, but in cases like this, it is literally being kept alive in pain, which is due to the owners emotional commitment.

And thats really all there is to it, if the living creature in front of you is in constant pain, constant agonizing pain, and you are keeping it alive on the basis of your personal feelings, you are hurting that animal. Every day. And those are sad, painful days for that animal. We do the same thing to some humans, even when they express their desire to die, which is a separate issue, but also sad, but atleast most humans can express such desires, and understand what it means to die and escape the pain, but dogs cant. Which is why we should make the hard decision and let them go, even if that hurts so, so much (again, yes I DO know, and yes I have had enough dogs in my life to know).

It's impressive, but it's also important to define how someone got there. If she got there on advanced medical treatments and break through drug therapies, but no one knows that...you're going to end up with a lot of people who have very unreasonable expectations put on the quality life they can likely experience in their natural life time. IE, have kids in your 30s if you want kids, don't wait until 50 thinking you're going to then start your family and follow it up as a body builder at 70 and settle down to wither away when you're 130 or so.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^Porksandwich:
So she takes no hormone treatments or anything like that? Because there was the 75 year old dude who was shooting up on growth hormones and stuff and looked like he was about 40-45.
This is much like the people who have kids at 50 and forget to mention they were getting fertility treatments for years and had half a dozen eggs frozen to do so.
Sounds amazing as hell without all the extra stuff in, then it sounds like "out of my price range" once you add it all in.
So is this lady truly based only on eating right, normal medications for someone of that age and working out? Or is there more and it's being conveniently left out?

If we have a thing that you can take at age 75 to turn your body into one 30 years younger, is that not also impressive?

>> ^Porksandwich:

So she takes no hormone treatments or anything like that? Because there was the 75 year old dude who was shooting up on growth hormones and stuff and looked like he was about 40-45.
This is much like the people who have kids at 50 and forget to mention they were getting fertility treatments for years and had half a dozen eggs frozen to do so.
Sounds amazing as hell without all the extra stuff in, then it sounds like "out of my price range" once you add it all in.
So is this lady truly based only on eating right, normal medications for someone of that age and working out? Or is there more and it's being conveniently left out?


If we have a thing that you can take at age 75 to turn your body into one 30 years younger, is that not also impressive?

So she takes no hormone treatments or anything like that? Because there was the 75 year old dude who was shooting up on growth hormones and stuff and looked like he was about 40-45.

This is much like the people who have kids at 50 and forget to mention they were getting fertility treatments for years and had half a dozen eggs frozen to do so.

Sounds amazing as hell without all the extra stuff in, then it sounds like "out of my price range" once you add it all in.

So is this lady truly based only on eating right, normal medications for someone of that age and working out? Or is there more and it's being conveniently left out?

Something I have come to realize now that I am engaged: Many women really do not understand the fact that most men are just as much under the effect of hormones as they are. And they NEVER shut off.

It should never be an excuse for men OR women. But it is something that couples should at least understand.

>> ^bmacs27:

@kceaton1
It isn't clear that the cause is entirely genetic. There is strong evidence that environmental factors (e.g. in utero hormone exposure) seem to play a role. I think it's safest to say it is somehow neurological in nature, however all neurological development is an extremely complicated interplay of environment and genetic predispositions. The fact is we don't understand the neurological underpinnings of attraction well enough to say how exactly it develops, and therefore what factors contribute.
There is almost certainly a genetic component however.


Well I know this; there is a certain amount of wiggle room for sure otherwise we wouldn't have fetishes galore (that would be your psychology/brain/sub-conscious screwing up your natural instincts). Those can't ALL be necessarily genetic in nature. Yes, I understand the hormone issue, but to me that is an entirely separate subject that doesn't really apply. BUT, it is terribly interesting. But, certain types of visual cortex information and recognition has to start getting built into the system that is linked to your natural predisposition for sexual reproduction--some of that HAS TO happen even while you're In Utero and of course in adolescence. Now what all turns on and changes here is a slight mystery and MAY determine your sexuality, but it was determined a long time ago via genetics when the event would turn on and what would turn on. If it can change, this doesn't matter as it will still fire on cure, it's just that they have to figure it out first. Same thing goes for gender identity disorder. Same issues to some extent, but some things have been even more~enhanced.

It's what you find pleasing to the eye, these things start getting encoded and built into the brain as soon as the brain is being created (atleast the instinctual element, babies like symmetry and hate non-symmetry, usually, that type of encoding). But you're right on the other stuff, I just meant they "may" have something to worry about in the "testing" department in the future; were the U.S. becomes the China of gay children `In Utero`, if you know what I mean--could get ugly and laws may need to be passed...

Hopefully I didn't make things more confusing.
This is PART, JUST PART of the Pandora's Box a test would bring about...

@kceaton1

It isn't clear that the cause is entirely genetic. There is strong evidence that environmental factors (e.g. in utero hormone exposure) seem to play a role. I think it's safest to say it is somehow neurological in nature, however all neurological development is an extremely complicated interplay of environment and genetic predispositions. The fact is we don't understand the neurological underpinnings of attraction well enough to say how exactly it develops, and therefore what factors contribute.

There is almost certainly a genetic component however.

>> ^Sarzy:

As someone whose genes pretty much guarantee I will eventually start balding, this intrigues me.


This technique doesn't sound very useful for you due not only to the difficulties they mention, but also because it wouldn't fix the underlying problem, which is that chemical signalling in your scalp is telling your hair cells to atrophy. What you'll probably need to do is wait for a drug that inhibits your natural levels of hormones such as Prostaglandin D2 (or it's receptor) in the scalp. This hormone (and a derivitive) seems to be the one that lead to baldness, so hopefully help is around the corner.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120321143013.htm

>> ^conan:

incredibly stupid tabloid science. i'm amazed that there're still people who can differentiate between cause and correlation. fat parents are having fat kids, is it genetics? no, it's because whatever the reason for your bad eating habits, you pass them down to your kids. what to you expect from your kids when you only eat junk? they'll eat it too. either because they mimic you or because you're the one who feeds them! congratulations, now you have perfect excuses: what once were "heavy bones" now are "hunger hormones" and genetics. this "documentation" didn't provide any hard facts, just hormones with names in quotation marks and similar snake oil stuff.
Step 1: stop doing sports, eat more junk and surprise! you'll become overweight. Step 2: catch up on exercising and change your diet and surprise again! your weight will drop. it's common sense. and this comes from someone who's still perfecting step 1... ;-)


I think you're misunderstanding the point of it. Everything you say is correct to a degree. I didn't hear them say that the sole cause of obesity is hormonal, not once. I'd be surprised if you watched it all the way through. The way you feed your children and the habits you give them is absolutely the root cause, at least I would say so. Then society/culture, marketing, advertising fast food. The cheapest foods are junk, that also plays a part.

But what they're saying here, is that the reason some people end up getting wildy overweight and not just a bit chunky is because there isn't the same hormone to tell them they're full. The amount some fat people eat would make a regular sized person sick, in just one meal.

I don't believe obesity is genetic either, I am one of those people who inherited my mothers shitty eating habits, was overweight as a child and now have to suffer the consequences of that. However my sister was fed the same way, offered the same things, but was always skinny because she ate like a bird (one years she would only eat bread rolls, haha). My children are two very different types, too. My daughter can eat more than the average adult, you know that old saying, hollow legs? But she puts weight on if I let her eat the wrong things or every time she feels hungry, so over the years I've had to very much restrict her. Now she tends to make the right choices so hopefully that will go through to adult life with her and I've not passed down the same bad habits, however she would eat every half hour if she listened to her belly. My son is just the opposite. If he's not hungry I could offer him his favourite anything and he'd turn it down. Lucky bugger!

Then there's the thing where my sister all of a sudden in her late teens became overweight. That didn't make much sense. But her eating habits had very much changed. The bit in this doc where they were testing identical twins where one was overweight and one wasn't was fascinating and tied things up much neater.


>> ^snoozedoctor:

Getting fat is like filling a bathtub with water. If you run the spigot faster than the drain, it fills up. Now THAT is heavy science. Burn more calories than you eat = weight loss.


You're talking about how to lose weight, a science we all understand This is talking about the reasons some of us gain. It's always pissed me off when bigger people rather than just admit they stuff their faces, try and pass it off as big bones (eh?) or genetics. I'm even rather cynical of people who say they love their weight and being big is beautiful and they want to be like that. I think rather they know how bloody difficult dieting is, not just the losing weight but keeping it off, also I think those people, and bless them for it, accept that they don't want to go through the endless bullshit of dieting and gaining and embrace it. Or they've got some chubby chasers paying them top dollar to watch them eat and balloon to 400 lbs. Food is very very addictive once you've learnt the pleasures of it, just like a drug. It's very hard for anyone who doesn't have a weight issue to understand it, especially since you've been listening to people make endless excuses for it over the years. I think that's what is putting the blinkers on you now when you watch anything with alternative reasons for obesity, you just see it as an excuse.

This is exciting, because what they're saying is if they can recreate these hormones they will be able to find a way of replacing them, which will make the whole dieting process much much easier.

incredibly stupid tabloid science. i'm amazed that there're still people who can differentiate between cause and correlation. fat parents are having fat kids, is it genetics? no, it's because whatever the reason for your bad eating habits, you pass them down to your kids. what to you expect from your kids when you only eat junk? they'll eat it too. either because they mimic you or because you're the one who feeds them! congratulations, now you have perfect excuses: what once were "heavy bones" now are "hunger hormones" and genetics. this "documentation" didn't provide any hard facts, just hormones with names in quotation marks and similar snake oil stuff.

Step 1: stop doing sports, eat more junk and surprise! you'll become overweight. Step 2: catch up on exercising and change your diet and surprise again! your weight will drop. it's common sense. and this comes from someone who's still perfecting step 1... ;-)

He's honestly one of the best players to ever play the game. Plus he was diagnosed at 11 with a growth hormone deficiency. Which is why he looks a big stocky and elf like. He's known to not dive...at least not nearly like any of his other teammates or Real Madrids.

Plus he has the best technical skill ever seen in a player, that is notice that at speed he can keep the ball very close to his feet making it difficult to get away from him. Put him on the best team that's probably ever existed with a game plan that allows tiny players to flourish and you see why FC Barcelona has won 13 out of a possible 16 trophies and an unprecedented 6 of 6 in 2009.