Do you not find that misleading to the other users on the site? People come along expecting links chosen by the wisdom of the crowds and end up just getting things two guys find interesting?
I was a reddit user back when they were populating it themselves. I was not offended to learn later, after meeting them, that they'd made up accounts to populate the site.
I enjoyed the really high quality links they posted; that was the only "contract" I felt like I had with reddit at that point. There was no discussion in the beginning, so the links were all there was, and they were high quality (i.e. I enjoyed reading the linked stories). Faking a community would be much harder, so it's lucky they didn't have to. By the time comments were a part of the experience at reddit, there were enough actual users to make it happen.
He is planning on relying on both Medicare and Medicaid. He already has our political opinions, and thank goodness he does.
Individuals shouldn't have to rely on popularity contests to be cared for when tragedy strikes: as a society we should care for everyone in the same situation. Charity, while good for the individual, is bad for society because it takes away from the importance of providing equally-available support.
Actually, that's not what this sounds like at all. He's protecting his assets for his children and preparing so he can receive public assistance; he's not about to starve or be kicked out of his home or taken off life support or have to file for bankruptcy. He isn't even raising money for immediately necessary expenses; he is raising money for foreseeable care expenses in the future.
Your hyperbole is rather baffling; I don't see the purpose behind it.
Given s_henry_paulson's sadness enough to comment, I'd say it's likely he has donated. Funnily enough I don't see why it's necessary for you to be outright rude to him.
Edit: I'm glad you've dropped the threat nonsense.
I'm failing to see how you've made that jump? How does recognizing words, translating them and displaying the result compare to mapping a naked body from only uncovered skin? at best, you could get the correct skin tone on a model.
Oh certainly it wouldn't be an accurate representation, it'd have to just "guess" with a generic model transformed to closely match the position/shape/skin tone of the person. Anyway, didn't mean to get off topic (or sound horribly creepy!), it's just that there are a million "interesting" (in good or bad ways) apps that people will be playing with once they have these powerful, programmable devices that can filter/overlay their view of the world in real time. It will be a fundamental change in the way people interact with the world — whether you're wearing them or not, if this catches on, many of the people around you will be. Right now we all have a pretty good idea of what other people are seeing — in most cases its roughly what we're seeing, just from a different location; in the not too distant future, that may not be so.
Staying off topic for a just a bit more, one obvious example would be to automatically give everyone you see a moustache. An app was on Hacker News that does this within the past month. People interested in developing these filters can start building them now by creating smart phone apps and then port them over once Glasses becomes available.
Forget about LCD/LED displays. This is more like an LSD display. You could have all sorts of weird/random stuff overlayed so you're always walking around like you're trippin' balls.
It should be noted that a kcal /is/ still a kcal; The adaption your body takes after being given different levels of macronutrients doesn't change that if you eat more than you expend, you will put on weight.
Also, I'm surprised that they didn't trial a 60% protein, 20% fat and 20% carb diet!
kcal may still be a kcal when verified in a bomb calorimeter - I believe for food they do it the same way everyone else does it: Put it in pure oxygen atmosphere, and light that baby on fire, measure the increase in temperature in a controlled environment, and the 'heat' produced is expressed in kcal.
now, my body does not have an active flame, and I don't have a combustion engine in my stomach. I use a (mysterious to me) metabolic process to convert what I eat into energy that my body can use.
For me, an individuals metabolic rate may be roughly proportional to kcal intake, but it is not the same thing, and it is different for different food types, combinations, and for different people.
I liked the article - even though I am not a dietician, I do think there is something wrong about the Adkins diet.. not healthy.
You are right that you have to adjust for metabolic rate; and while the content of your diet will have an effect on that rate (meaning getting an entirely accurate assessment of your expenditure is near impossible) the kcal value maintains;
I suppose it's my mentality that you adjust your eating habits based on your diet contents and its effect on metabolism, to match the kcal values, rather than viewing the kcal as an inconstant value.
Thank you, by the way. I enjoyed the opportunity to think though this
This dialog reminded me of a rumor I heard awhile ago about trying to measuring efficiency of Lance Armstrong (competitive cyclist). A brief search gave me [1], but I'm sure there are better articles out there. My big take away is that even with modern technology and understanding there is just so much we still don't fully understand - especially about the human body and processes.
While an interesting read, it feels like I just read some long winded analogy describing metabolism?
In the parent comment, I'm including bodily factors like metabolic reactions within "expend".
The degree to which this makes a difference in overall expenditure is the un-quantifiable part; but adjusting your diet further to counter this lack of expenditure will still have the same effect. It still is a numbers game in my mind.
"A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you want to lose weight, you just need to eat less."
"Well, no, your body can react differently to different types of calories. If some calories tend to induce hunger and others don't, then it matters quite a lot which calories you consume."
"Well, yeah, sure, everybody knows that."
Well, no, everybody may "know" it, but when you're not looking, they'll slip "a calorie is a calorie" right back in.
This matters. Either eating certain foods induces more calories to be consumed, in which case the key to dieting is to eat certain foods and not eat others and decades of consensus and advice are irredeemably, irretrievably wrong, or a calorie is a calorie and these sorts of studies are irredeemably, irretrievably wrong (as this is hardly the first one to suggest lower carb or lower GI diets are superior). Some people seem very comfortable just sort of sliding into the "sure, calorie type matters" whenever it is argued, but somehow not being willing to follow the logic that if calorie type matters, then certain further research and conclusions are called for that are sharply at odds with conventional wisdom, which has been very, very much that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight gain.
Conventional wisdom and decades of dieting advice have been deeply, profoundly, foundationally based on a calorie being a calorie being a calorie, and if that is not true, the conventional wisdom is deeply, profoundly, foundationally if you like, flawed. There's no two ways around this.
(Though I absolutely, positively guarantee that if it does turn out that calorie type matters that this move will be used to slowly but surely rewrite the last 50 years of dietary history such that the conventional wisdom was always right and never said anything about calorie types not mattering. But it won't be true.)
The trouble is that your digestive process isn't necessarily time-independent, so the same piece of food could represent different energy fluxes into your body if eaten at different times, and the calorie expenditure of your body isn't necessarily time-independent, so the same exercise (including just sitting around) could represent different energy fluxes out of your body if performed at different times.
Without actually measuring energy fluxes, "a kcal is a kcal" is meaningless.
The point of the original study was:
1) For weight loss, how many calories you eat (or don't eat) matters more than any other factor.
2) Once the weight loss period has ended, the type of diet (i.e., the balance of calorie types consumed) matters more for maintaining the new weight and overall health.
With respect, you're over simplifying it. Achieving and maintaining good proportions (the usual goal of those starting out) is going to take more than Olympic lifts + pullups. Similarly 3x8 on one muscle group once a week isn't a catch all; it's my opinion that a work out should tailor to your ability and goals.
That's before we even get into diet. Planning exercise without diet (or vice versa) is a recipe for no progress.
