Skeptical

People's definition of "healthy" varies just far too much. I would be fine with just leaving people on their own, but I live in Canada: I'll be paying through the nose every single time someone decides to buy a "low-fat" alternative, or to choose the Western Diet over others. But you have to agree that there are people out there who HAVE had sucess on these things. Case in point, my sister. She doesn't really even LIKE meat very much. Much less fatty meat like a cheeseburger or bacon. And she is skinny; thin enough to see muscular definition in many places on her body. It isn't because certain foods work for every person, its because she tried the atkins diet, failed, and then went on her own diet and listened to her body, which craves buttloads of grains, fruits, and veggies. I mean, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say exactly? Are you saying that "low fat" products will never help anyone lose weight? I think that is false for sure. The only reason they are so popular is that they work for many people. Are you saying that "low fat" isnt right for EVERYBODY? I would agree with that. Are you saying it isnt right for MOST people? I'd also probably agree. But to ignore low fat (or low-er fat) diets is silly because there is just so much sucess with them. Skinny is not healthy. Case in point, my 83 year old grandmother (no genetic relation) who eats little but T.V. dinners, sugar, and cookies. Literally, at least 50% of her diet is sugar and starch, with a little sodium thrown in for variety. And yet she's not at all overweight.

Hmmm... that not it being firewalled... have you tried other browsers? Are you on a network where data is restricted?

frm: Nutritionism's greatest failing is that of unacknowledged imperfection: people lie, break diets, and are just generally impossible to place in groups, control or otherwise. We're not germs in petri dishes, and you can't pretend that any evidence from unscientific studies can be considered fact. There ARE studies that refute the hyperlipid hypthesis. There are also studies that show prayer works. again, he outlines the two groups perfectly: vegetarians, and others. They have very similar behaviors, just as he outlines. if anything, that quote supports my statements. if anything, breaking diets would suggest that the vegetarians have even larger gains than 10 years added to their lifespans. you cannot deny the adventist studies and be taken seriously in a nutritonalist environment, they're that defining. you're trying to besmirch them by association because they "are studies" if you look at more than a hundred thousand individuals (!) as the adventist studies have all done, and follow them over decades, do you really think the vegetarians are going to eat less chocolate than the others? do you think these clearly religious people are going to lie when answering questioneers and participating in interviews? These factors are also all statistically taken into account, giving a margin of error, not 10 years, 123 days 12 hours, 34 minutes and 56 seconds longer longevity: rather a median with the highest uper and lower boundries given. the best studies, the largest studies, the most respected stuides, the studies the professionals rely on, these studies are more important than others. a study isn't a study. I'm sure we could find either a reasonable explanation for why prayer works (placebo effect) or a professional could find faults with the studies, the analysis or the conclusions drawn. It's a science, not a guessing game. my comment on the major points not being addressed by you still stands. do you refute the logic and evidence i've provided? do you choose to ignore it? or the third alternative (the unlikely one) changing your opinion based on new scientific evidence presented to you? My opinion hasn't been altered in about a year and a half now. If you can examine the COMPLETE studies, not just bits and pieces, and still argue the same old lines against the hyperlipid hypothesis, then I really don't know where to go next. The "proof" they offer is no more evidence than it is comprehensive. It's bad science supported by bizzare twists of logic, and all swallowed whole by mainstream medicine since post-WWII.

^ Lol, I looked up The Old Kingdom, and I've already read them, just under a different name. I'm currently reading S.M. Stirling's work. It's interesting, with characters that I find profoundly unique, although I think that his writing has yet to really come of age: no enough compeition or comparasion in the genre of "post-apocalyptic-ASB-epic-tolkienized-post-modern-pseudo-medieval-fantasy.

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet. Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept. If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen? Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before! Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels. // As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns. When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it. And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594 and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc. the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are. that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic. And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination. I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx the vegetarian adventists have their non-vegetarian counterparts as the perfect control group. that's what separates the studies on them from almost all other dietary statistics. that's why i mentioned that example in particular: it's too strong to ignore. inflammation and bleeding are not the same thing (which you know). you can basically be allergic to anything, it's just rare. however: this is the splitting of hairs. you haven't been able to respond to the major claims at hand the role of carbohydrates and fats. frm: Nutritionism's greatest failing is that of unacknowledged imperfection: people lie, break diets, and are just generally impossible to place in groups, control or otherwise. We're not germs in petri dishes, and you can't pretend that any evidence from unscientific studies can be considered fact. There ARE studies that refute the hyperlipid hypthesis. There are also studies that show prayer works.

People's definition of "healthy" varies just far too much. I would be fine with just leaving people on their own, but I live in Canada: I'll be paying through the nose every single time someone decides to buy a "low-fat" alternative, or to choose the Western Diet over others.

I always would plant herbs, MTK and then slay or runecraft. I've never had any money issues, even after two buyable skillcapes and a lot of money spent on armor, but I'm not sure how much that works out to per hour.

And the only webpage you're having a problem with is Youtube?

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet. Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept. If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen? Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before! Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels. // As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns. When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it. And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594 and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc. the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are. that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic. And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination. I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx

God hates us all - Slayer

Yea, it's not anything quite as new as it was the first time around.

I've spent the last two hours trying to get my productivity software to work. Epic irony.

Do it. Even if you get caught, it'll be fun: bikes dry off.

4447

That does look awesome. However, I refuse to pay $10 to see a movie.

That sounds pretty cool. I'm now wishing that I had a use for it.

I didn't think that they sold?

Good vid. Sounds like an interesting update, more after watching that. :thumbup:

The economy under Reagen. Wow. Ok. Let's see, what did Reagan accomplish? President Reagans economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagans tax reforms. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world. Thats just off the top of my head, even if points one and two were the only ones, would that not be enough? Now, post your reasons as why it fails. (Note, I'm not Republican) Dude, WTF! He was an impressive leader, I've done a lot of reading about him, but his administration was a massive failure! It was more incompetent than Bush's: it just did less damage. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b91096.html

When a social congregation forces you to consume food you otherwise never would: "I got coffee and donuts." Me: sorry, I avoid caffeine overdose and diabetes. Her: "......"

It hates you and wants to escape: the best way is to get your parents to take it away from you.

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats? As I see it, Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body. The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade! This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger. Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods. one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk. further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful" you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains. http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind. I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook. reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet. Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept. If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen? Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before! Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels. // As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns. When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it. And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

I didn't know that we had such serious drinkers here in OT.

Wait are you training to become a manager straight away? Get an anteater? Or find the source/nest, and destroy it. Are you sure there's no food in your room or whatever? You might just have to get a pest control specialist in to sort it out. On that note, I'm glad we don't have ants where I live. We used to get them where I used to live in the North Island, but it's too cold down here :thumbsup: Wrong. If all you do is kill the ants, hire an exterminator, whatever, they'll just rebuild and come back. Instead, destroy their habitat: keep grass healthy a soil loamy (they thrive in dry sandy stuff) kill them when you see them, and encourage birds and garter snakes to hang around.

DO YOU HEAR THE VOICES TOO!?!?! Nah just kidding. Maybe your xbox turns on it's fan randomly like mine. An hour after I turn it off it will start running. .... and that's why you should own a PS3. :thumbsup: We had an underground lightning strike, and it survived the fridge, washing machine, furnace, electric stove, cell phone, laptop battery, desktop....