>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


As a medical doctor, I call bullshit on this guy. Look at Atkins/South Beach's effect on peoples weight 1 year AFTER the diet. I see people go on diets all the time. They almost universally fail after 1 year. (Remember, we're talking about LONG-TERM weight loss, not SHORT-TERM weight loss...Atkins/South Beach perform very well in the short term!) My patients that go to the gym to lose weight do much, much better....but only if they KEEP going to the gym.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.


Yup, I've done Keto combined with Intermittent Fasting (I usually eat one meal a day after I get home from work, sometimes I eat lunch too if we go out and eat at my workplace) and I've lost ~30 kg (~66 pounds) in 5-6 months and I have not been hungry once since I entered ketosis. No exercise involved at all either. (Yes yes... 1 data point does not a fact make, especially when they are subjective feelings)

So instead of eating sugar with more sugar and fat-free foods with added sugar in it to make it palatable... eat natural full-fat products and protein and be full all day... or you could eat sugar and have an insulin spike 30 mins later and end up with a lower blood sugar than you started with... unless you eat again. Ergo the "You should 5 meals a day" thing.

Some linky things
Scientific sources about the effects of Ketogenic Diet
1 Cancer
2 Alzheimers
3 Diabetes (Type 2)
4 Cardiovascular health and Dietary saturated fat
5 Review of LC diet and health markers

Blog
6 Cholesterol (Blog by a doctor so iffy source but interesting stuff anyway; I recommend reading all parts really)
7 How we came to believe cholesterol and fat is bad for us (From the same blog. 1 hour talk on the subject)

Video series/lectures
8 Cancer again (Video lecture)
9 The role of fat in weight loss (Video series, 3 parts)
10 Why we get fat (Video series, 3 parts)
11 2011 Public Forum in San Francisco at Nutrition and Health Conference (Video series, 4 part playlist)

You can also look into some of the videos on the sift such as:
12 The Food Revolution (Video/lecture sifted on VS)
13 Sugar the bitter truth.

(Seems they are both sifted by me... Oh my... self promotion galore!)

>> ^Kalle:

never heard of stress increasing hunger...always felt it was the opposite


I might be less hungry in general, but it makes me much more likely to eat stuff that's less good for me.

never heard of stress increasing hunger...always felt it was the opposite

In "Why we get fat", Gary Taubes argues very persuasively that the above is almost entirely wrong. Increasing exercise will have have the effect of increasing hunger or reducing your activity at other times through tiredness. Eating less will likewise reduce your activity level or lead to levels of hunger that are intolerable in the long term. The way to lose weight according to him is the Atkins, South Beach, Primal method of reducing sugar and carb intake to something very low. Personally I found it very convincing and I strongly recommend the book.

>> ^gwiz665:

Well, he should be properly questioned for whatever he did/did not do. I don't think there's any doubt there. I get the heebeejeebees when they refuse to question him in the Equadorian embassy, and insist he must be extradited. That's sorta where it starts to smell fishy. If they question him and he is found guilty in the end, THEN they should totally extradite him.
His works with wikileaks doesn't absolve him of crimes.
He should, however, in now way be extradited to the US for instance, where he would likely receive a Bradley Manning and be detained until he breaks from it.


If I was Manning I'd be inclined to go down the hunger strike route. How else can he protest his incarceration? And I'm not sure I'd want to cope with the treatment he receives each day.

This just made me see red when I fist saw it. I have always loved books and reading. I used to get most of my reading from the library, and if I fell in love with the book, I bought it.

Unfortunaterly most of my books are paperback. They do feel cheap and are uncomfortable to read, especially if they are thick. If I get a hardcover book, I either really, REALLY loved it (like my 'Lord of the Rings' set, back in the 80's), or I was eager to read it and didn't want to wait for the softcover (I admit, Harry Potters, Sookie Stackhouse and Hunger Games are some of the series that I have hardcover books).

Anyway! If you are not going to read your book more than once, get it from the library, or buy softcover. Do not buy hardcovers and then have so little of respect for them that you can just chop them up to be a storage box.

Maybe Lauren Conrad is rich enough to just buy whatever she wants and toss it away after one use. I hope not.

Books are precious.

Glad I am not the only one who hated this movie. All good "dystopian" stories must be either DARK or SATIRICAL or both. Even mediocre dystopia like Starship Troopers manages to achieve both.

The Hunger Games manages to do neither. It couldn't be dark because they needed a PG-13 rating, and any satire was undermined by all the bad parts pointed out in this fake trailer.

Interesting interview but my GOD could Lipton and the audience be any more sycophantic? He's a comedian, he has not cured world hunger or cancer.

It's the single biggest problem with the show, the absolute fawning over the guests, it's quite sickening.

@rbar in your examples, force is used to remove a person's choices, but then you equate that with bad choices. Bad choices which, in a free market, would not involve the use of force. So, are bad choices just the same as no choice or do we need to make a more refined distinction?

- No choice => Coercion, someone is denying you something you have a right to (like your life).

- Bad choice => No coercion, the choice is just shitty.

The classic example of "exploitation" is a terribly low paying job, is there any coercion going on? We can always concoct a moral dilemma where a man must feed his malnourished family, thus the employer ends up with the terrifying power of life and death over the poor worker and his family. Holy Coercion, Batman!

Would it make sense if I accused an American citizen of coercing children in Uganda for not donating to a charity that saves lives over there? Blame a homeless man's hunger on someone denying him a handout? Accuse an employer of stealing money from a worker if they paid exactly what was agreed upon beforehand, but paid less than what we think the worker "deserved"?

In a free market, you want to reduce the "choice remover" that is coercion. Whatever's left, nobody is being denied what is theirs by right, so they're all choices. It's up to the person doing the choosing to label them good or bad.

dammit, i haz hunger

@Sarzy - As has been explained in recent films, when the lower brain function proceeds (due to the virus running rampant there), the basic mammalian instincts continue. The need to feed is not driven by a need to survive hunger (depending on the movie; 28 Day Later is one exception) because if a zombie didn't eat for a hundred years, it'd still be walking around aimlessly with it's never-decomposing body intact. It's just the primitive drive to feed that urges them onward.

This makes me wonder why then that's the only basic instinctual behavior zombies carry out. It seems they should be doing other things like trying to make sex with one another.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.

Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?

No you fuck off! Ok, I pick Team Katniss. (Fuck you for asking)


Fuck you for answering!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.

Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?


No you fuck off! Ok, I pick Team Katniss. (Fuck you for asking)

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.


Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?