Skeptical

I meant specifics: I want to know what it was used for. I don't think that they'll release that info, although I'll call customer service tomorrow to find out. I work for an ISP, in 5 years we've never had that request, but i'd say if it's over billing (We dont cap data) and a dispute at least in America you would be legally obligated to at least give some data. Thanks, I'd been wondering about that.

Ok, since you are basically denying one of the fundamentals of putting on and taking off weight, what DOES work in your opinion? [hide][/• Two main semi-starvation studies: Benedict's in 1917 and Keys's in 1944 ◦ Parameters: 1400-2100 calories/day ◦ Results: some weight loss, but dramatic decreases in metabolism and other negative/ dangerous effects ▪ metabolism adjusted so that any consumption greater than normal led to weight gain ▪ subjects were always cold, and couldn't keep warm 15 ▪ lowered pulse and blood pressure, slowed movements, weakness ▪ psychological havoc: loss of ambition, irritability, depression, neurosis ▪ several of Keys's subjects cracked and binged ▪ constant complaints of hunger ▪ post-restriction, subjects ate enormous amounts (8000 cal), still felt hungry but physically incapable of ingesting more ▪ rapidly gained back the weight, usually ending up fatter than before ▪ Keys's subjects ended up 5% heavier; with 50% more body fat! ◦ Conclusions: ▪ obese and lean subjects get the same effects ▪ energy expenditure decreased dramatically with intake restriction ▪ adding calories brought energy expenditure back up, but any lost fat would be regained ▪ thus, weight loss via calorie restriction can only be maintained by permanent calorie restriction • Hirsch did a similar experiment in 1995 on obese subjects ◦ concluded that calorie restriction resulted in a disproportionate decrease in energy expenditure and metabolism ▪ the body resists changes in adiposity • Positive energy balance hypothesis: weight gain is a result of energy intake exceeding expenditure ◦ just doesn't work that way; calorie restriction has been remarkably ineffective for weight loss in obese patients ◦ low-fat, calorie-restricted diets are no better than balanced calorie-restricted diets ◦ long-term calorie-restriction studies even show slight fat gain • Conventional wisdom sticks with calorie restriction, despite the evidence • Exercise: the other side of the equation ◦ since calorie restriction is ineffective, then by the process of isolation, energy expenditure must be the key to weight control ◦ problem: exercise burns insignificant amounts of energy and increases appetite ▪ e.g., lumberjacks eat 5000 cal/day vs tailors at 2500 cal/day ◦ Mayer's evangelism overcame the prevailing attitude that exercise was ineffective or counterproductive ▪ he noticed that obesity correlates with inactivity, then assumed that inactivity causes obesity (it's really obesity that causes inactivity) ▪ problem: obesity correlates with poverty — more likely physical laborers ▪ Mayer's hypothesis: there is a loophole in the relation between appetite and activity; hunger and activity are proportional only to a certain point — below that, hunger remains even if you don't exercise ▪ based on two of his own studies, both of which are prime examples of bad science ▪ public figure: wrote in NYT and had a syndicated column ◦ ultimately, the evidence has shown that exercise is ineffective for weight loss ▪ "underwhelming" support of Mayer's hypothesis in the scientific literature • Flawed assumption: hunger is a psychological phenomenon, a question of will power ◦ No, it's a physiological drive to get enough calories; that's why we get hungrier after exercise (or after not eating for a few hours) Paradoxes • obesity: psychological or biological (physiological)? ◦ fat deposition is very specific (men: above waist, women: below waist) ▪ suggests a role for sex hormones ◦ obesity is hereditary ▪ babies of diabetic mothers are born fatter and more likely to become obese ◦ a starved endomorph doesn't become an ecto or mesomorph ◦ different people fatten differently when they overeat: some gain weight easily, others not at all ▪ one study overfed sedentary men (getting up to 10,000 cal/day) ▪ a minority gained weight easily (large differences in degree of fattening) 16 ▪ all lost weight readily afterward (just as starved subjects gained it) ▪ what happens to all the extra calories in those who don't fatten when overfed? ▪ farmers breed livestock to be more or less fatty: genetic component ◦ experiments on Zucker rats (one gene is changed, resulting in major obesity) demonstrate that the rats will store fat even when half-starved ▪ this suggests the cause of obesity is biological (hormonal or genetic) • Why does the "gluttony-sloth" hypothesis (caloric balance) persist? ◦ Hilde Bruch found that fat children always overate; ~focus on psychological factors ◦ Louis Newburgh: published the seminal article on the subject ▪ strongly advocated the gluttony-sloth hypothesis (psychological; failure of will) ◦ problem: "obesity is caused by overeating and/or deficient activity" - this is both an assumption and a tautology ▪ assumption: that the correlated phenomenon is the cause (and not effect) ▪ tautology: overeating and inactivity are defined in terms of the degree to which they cause obesity ▪ we never say that a lean person with a big appetite overeats ▪ a fat person has overeaten by definition ▪ like saying that alcoholism is caused by chronic overdrinking ▪ vague terms, relative to whether the person is obese or not ◦ obese people don't gain weight endlessly, they stabilize at a certain weight ▪ someone at a stable weight is not overeating (calories in = calories out) • other hypotheses like "gradual weight gain from consistent small caloric excess" and "toxic environment" also fail ◦ the first doesn't explain why the person doesn't notice the fat gain and cut back ◦ the second doesn't explain why we all don't get fat, despite sharing the same toxic environment ▪ deeply immersed in moral and class judgments: cheap fast-food is vilified while equally high calorie Starbucks drinks are never blamed; if we watch too much tv then we're couch potatoes bound to get fat, but if we sit around reading or studying then we're not accused • if obesity is a result of a psychological defect (willpower problem), why don't all other defective individuals (drug addicts, gamblers, criminals) get fat? • Hilde Bruch later re-evaluated her hypothesis, revising which was cause and which was effect, coming to the view that overeating is the symptom of obesity, not the cause][/hide] Essentially, cut carbs. Any and all benefits you will see from calorie restrictions is due to the elimination of the main components of the western diet: sugar and flour.

Homework, messing around with Ubuntu, and now watching The Big Bang Theory. Good day, altogether.

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy. I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight. But look at the disparity in the numbers. There is no disparity in the numbers. He started eating 500 fewer calories. Nothing else about his life changed, so that means his body had to get the energy from somewhere. AKA his fat stores. So his body was using 500 cals of his body fat instead of using food. A pound of body fat can be turned into about 3500 calories of energy. Your use of percentages doesn't make any sense. My dad cut his intake by 20%. He lost 1% per week. But if my dad weighed 1 pound he wouldve lost 20% of his body weight each day =P Really though...percent just doesnt make any sense. Daily intake percent has nothing to do with weight loss percent... Positive energy balance hypothesis: weight gain is a result of energy intake exceeding expenditure ◦ just doesn't work that way; calorie restriction has been remarkably ineffective for weight loss in obese patients ◦ low-fat, calorie-restricted diets are no better than balanced calorie-restricted diets ◦ long-term calorie-restriction studies even show slight fat gain Conventional wisdom sticks with calorie restriction, despite the evidence I really wish that I had the full text. I'll see about picking it up tomorrow so that I can provide the full study references that aren't in the summary.

I meant specifics: I want to know what it was used for. I don't think that they'll release that info, although I'll call customer service tomorrow to find out.

You seem surprised. I can't make up my mind on the drug legalization thing. On the one hand, with taxes, less enforcement costs etc it seems like a good idea. On the other side however, increased medical costs and education dropouts make it a difficult decision. I was just kidding about subsidizing it... I would want the government to tax the crap out of it. Then use the money for education and healthcare. Really though, it's not about money: in a perfect world, there would be no cigarettes or weed, and very little alcohol. Unfortunately, it's here to stay, and pot isn't all that bad. You'd be better off busting up coke rings and putting away crystal meth producers for a long time.

^I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, just that it's kind of a strange thing to post. Really though, the expense, especially if you purchase it sans additives, can be quite prohibitive.

HD video, torrents, gaming... you can do it if you try. Though that's quite incredible :mellow: Ok, but I won't try, being on a 95GB cap. To OP: Looks like it's better, hope your problem get's resolved. Seems to be. Usage is back to normal. Seems unlikely though that it was the modem. I'm personally quite suspicious that they just stopped using it. I've been narrowing down the locations that it can be used from, wandering around measuring signal strength (I live in a widely spaced subdivision, and removed anyone over 60, the computer inept, and children under 10, although I am making an assumption there). To be moving as much data as that, they must have been fairly close. Is there any way for me to see the sites visited/data transferred? I doubt that my ISP would release this information, even if it was to the owner of the connection. What I'm really concerned with is someone doing something illegal.

Wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Kilogram_and_gram_calories. Raising the temperature of water has nothing to do with the food value of a calorie. what ?!? you quote an article that says: then claim the opposite? sorry, "irony" in written form doesn't work, if that was your intent. were you trying to quote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_calorie which could serve as a paraphrasing of my correct non-wikipedia statement because i actually know what i'm talking about here, not looking it up as i go along. are you trying to suggest that i defined the food calorie incorrectly based on water, which i did not do? (not trying to sound defensive here, although it may look that way) Sorry about the double post guys, I couldn't get the edit button to work in Firefox? It just never finished loading, even after several tries. "the context of food energy the term calorie generally refers to the kilogram calorie." (Wikipedia) "The kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius." ^Nothing to do except how much energy is released from combustion.

I would refuse to pay for the war. As it is, I may have to move to another country to avoid being forced into supporting the war in Afghanistan. (Lol, Canada being too violent and aggressive.) More money for education, none for fighting bud. Hell, I'd subsidize it, lmao.

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy. I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight. But look at the disparity in the numbers.

Lol my grandfather hit a guy on a bike yesterday. Tasteless. I'm a cyclist, and this attitude is exactly the reason that I move off the road every-time an SUV or pickup is anywhere near me, let alone the measures I have to take concerning Hummers.

I'm not sure exactly what my opinion is concerning abortion. Considering the issue logically, it's a perfectly moral decision. (Stating that from a non-nihilist point of view, a view that I reserve for moral issues.) However, the fact that a life is indeed being cut short bothers me, even if it is only potential life. Usually I support abortion, although not militantly, since I find that pro-lifers are often obnoxious. The very name, "Pro-life", is ridiculous: they're hardly "pro-life" or the title would also mean opposition to the death penalty, which is certainly not always true. They're ant-abortion, not "pro-life." And please, no one mention "tax dollars" when discussing this issue: it displays both a rather disturbingly flexible sense of morality, and, if you're anti-abortion, lack a grasp of basic numbers and mathematic functions.

^ Starship troopers.... :thumbsup:

Metal has lost a god. If I see someone using the devil's horns, and they don't know what it means, or who created it, I'm punching them in the face for him.

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else. the calorific value of food, at least as it is defined over here, is the energetic value absorbed with normal absorption of nutrients, not the total potential energy of the food itself. The same goes for all other nutritional information. You could claim that's an estimate, but absorption of energy is very similar, to within a single percent, going by my old health and nutrition textbook... I suggest getting facts before claiming knowledge. Wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Kilogram_and_gram_calories. Raising the temperature of water has nothing to do with the food value of a calorie.

So far the use has dropped back to normal, in the 3 days since the modem was swapped. I'm hoping that it was the modem, but it seems really unlikely: I can't even find a record of that ever being a problem. My router refuses to accept the MAC address.... it insists that it's invalid, even though I've confirmed over and over that it's correct. Thanks for the help so far guys.

**Drools**

I live in Canada. And I'm proud of my country: according to a recording industry group (forget which one) we're the piracy capital of the world.

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else. I dont need to read the book. When I bulk weight I eat the same diet that I eat when I cut weight, but when bulking I eat more and when cutting I eat less. Everyone who has disciplined experience in building their body can tell you this. Also my dad's doctor told him he needed to drop about 40 pounds. His weight was stable, though. I told him to log everything he eats and the ammount. I cut his diet by 500 calories per day and hes been losing a steady 1-2 lbs per week. Hell, the entire Weight Watchers program works off calorie counting...Plenty of sucess when people follow that program. Ever watch The Biggest Loser? They count their calories. It's fact...science. It is the energy you take in compared to the energy you burn. Unless maybe you are talking about someone eating a diet identical in calories but different in composition? Because if person A eats a diet rich in vegetables and lean proteins and person B eats the same calories per day, but eats nothing but cheesecake, person B would probably be more unhealthy and probably fatter... Or are you saying that if someone eats 4000 calories of good food, and person B eats all the same foods but the portions only add up to 1000 calories, person A will not weigh more? I'd have to disagree with that. Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

This is a very strange thread. After an initial flurry of posting, I predict it dying. I have a phone, as it was a gift. I do carry it when I leave the house, although I probably only use it about once a week. It's just a tool, nothing more. When I go for a walk with my dogs and carry a knife and a cell phone, they have a very similar function.

I might check it out. Gotta get my USB-TV tuner working first though... can't stand commercials.

Make sure that you socialize him while he's still young, if you're getting a pup. It'll be frustrating, and you'll be cleaning up stuff you don't want to, but it's worth it. Be patient, it's just a stage. Should be fairly smart, so basic training shouldn't be to big of a deal. Better trainers have written articles on it, so just read around, and make sure you always read several articles on the subject, and then pick the best and most useful info from each. Dogs are awesome, so have fun. :thumbsup:

Did about 10% of a course in one day. Mind you, it's a half credit course, but still, it's pretty awesome. :thumbsup:

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.