my experience has actually always been that the people with the most fearful attitudes towards death are religious, whereas atheists tend to take a more healthy approach of resignation and acceptance. and, i don't think that's a coincidence, either.
if what drives religion is the fear of death, or perhaps of irrelevance, then it should logically follow that the way to abolish religion is to foster rational attitudes about the inevitability and certainty of death.
it's a cultural revolution, of course. and, it certainly intersects dramatically with the traditional approach of using reason to counter superstition. but it approaches the issue from a psychological perspective. and i do think that, even if my cause and effect analysis is lacking or incomplete, that this is fundamentally a problem of psychology.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
turns out that the conservation laws are wrong: our bodies can create energy out of nothing. who knew?
maybe it's the answer to the energy crisis, too. and, hey - maybe we don't have to eat at all.
it's actually hard to even know what the study is suggesting, as the claim is terminologically incoherent. when one speaks of burning calories, that is a measure of work that is being done. the claim that sedentary people burn the same number of calories as active people is a contradiction in terms; it cannot be what the study actually says. this is a total fail at the editing stage, to the point that whomever oversaw this report should really be fired.
i flipped through the study, and it's suggesting that your body will adjust through subconscious and autonomous functions to ensure that the total number of calories burned is static. even that seems outrageous - you want to think of it as a rate game. so, a reasonable claim would be that if you start exercising then your internal metabolism slows down a little. conceding the point doesn't really get one anywhere: even if this is true (and it is really not that unlikely) then it follows that, if you want to lose weight, you simply need to do even more exercise, so you're overpowering your body's metabolic response.
i mean, your body can only reduce the amount of energy it's burning to a certain point. eventually, the exercise will always win - unless you're attached to an iv while you're on the treadmill.
otherwise, we've got bigger problems than a crisis in nutritional science. we'll need to start over again with physics, too.
----
Mick Biggins
Yeah, the body plateaus after you grow comfortable with your levels of exercise - but this article isn't comparing no exercise vs. moderate exercise, it compares some exercise with more. People who get no exercise whatsoever will still benefit from starting a workout program in conjunction with a proper diet. 300 calories is virtually nothing. If you really want to lose weight, eat an adequate amount of the right foods and run your BMR number with a calculator online. Adjust diet to fit the BMR and hold a deficit of 1,000 or more calories daily, you'll see a significant difference. After adjusting my diet to equal what my body burns in a day without exercise (BMR) then doing a 1,000 calorie deficit's worth of exercise daily, I lost around 25 pounds in just over a month: 235 down to 210. High calorie deficits might not work for everyone, but drop pop and sugar and exercise more, and you'll see the difference. Good luck!
jessica
the idea that weight loss plateaus at a certain point is equivalent to claiming that your body has the ability to spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.
do you have any proposals for a physical mechanism that would allow for this?
maybe it's the answer to the energy crisis, too. and, hey - maybe we don't have to eat at all.
it's actually hard to even know what the study is suggesting, as the claim is terminologically incoherent. when one speaks of burning calories, that is a measure of work that is being done. the claim that sedentary people burn the same number of calories as active people is a contradiction in terms; it cannot be what the study actually says. this is a total fail at the editing stage, to the point that whomever oversaw this report should really be fired.
i flipped through the study, and it's suggesting that your body will adjust through subconscious and autonomous functions to ensure that the total number of calories burned is static. even that seems outrageous - you want to think of it as a rate game. so, a reasonable claim would be that if you start exercising then your internal metabolism slows down a little. conceding the point doesn't really get one anywhere: even if this is true (and it is really not that unlikely) then it follows that, if you want to lose weight, you simply need to do even more exercise, so you're overpowering your body's metabolic response.
i mean, your body can only reduce the amount of energy it's burning to a certain point. eventually, the exercise will always win - unless you're attached to an iv while you're on the treadmill.
otherwise, we've got bigger problems than a crisis in nutritional science. we'll need to start over again with physics, too.
----
Mick Biggins
Yeah, the body plateaus after you grow comfortable with your levels of exercise - but this article isn't comparing no exercise vs. moderate exercise, it compares some exercise with more. People who get no exercise whatsoever will still benefit from starting a workout program in conjunction with a proper diet. 300 calories is virtually nothing. If you really want to lose weight, eat an adequate amount of the right foods and run your BMR number with a calculator online. Adjust diet to fit the BMR and hold a deficit of 1,000 or more calories daily, you'll see a significant difference. After adjusting my diet to equal what my body burns in a day without exercise (BMR) then doing a 1,000 calorie deficit's worth of exercise daily, I lost around 25 pounds in just over a month: 235 down to 210. High calorie deficits might not work for everyone, but drop pop and sugar and exercise more, and you'll see the difference. Good luck!
jessica
the idea that weight loss plateaus at a certain point is equivalent to claiming that your body has the ability to spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.
do you have any proposals for a physical mechanism that would allow for this?
at
05:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the first thing that crossed my mind was "i bet there's a lot of conservatives that mistakenly think they're leftists posting on the video about cultural appropriation".
ignore them. the ones that aren't racists (most of them are racists. what they're actually opposed to is miscegenation. they want racial segregation, of the old-timey conservative type: separate but equal.) are idiots.
the song? meh. i liked them better when they were pretending to be u2. and, i didn't like them much then, either.
i'd suggest looking into some old george harrison records, instead.
ignore them. the ones that aren't racists (most of them are racists. what they're actually opposed to is miscegenation. they want racial segregation, of the old-timey conservative type: separate but equal.) are idiots.
the song? meh. i liked them better when they were pretending to be u2. and, i didn't like them much then, either.
i'd suggest looking into some old george harrison records, instead.
at
04:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you know, it was irritating when this went mainstream.....15 years ago? it was a stupid fad. it would go away like all the other stupid fads.
it's past the point of annoyance, now, and even past the point of dismay. it's just befuddling. what the hell does anybody get out of this absolute trash?
who buys this garbage?
it's past the point of annoyance, now, and even past the point of dismay. it's just befuddling. what the hell does anybody get out of this absolute trash?
who buys this garbage?
at
04:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)