What "sheeple" and "selfish arseholes" have in common.

Here's a clue...

From http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/dhs-solicits-for-another-216-million-rounds-of-ammo---february-7-2013-by-tim-brown---think-any/question-3509245/

When we're born, we're selfish arseholes.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm hungry!).
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I've got wind!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I've shat myself!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm too hot!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm too cold!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I'm lonely!)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah (I just felt like going "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!) and so on.

Then we learn how to walk and talk.
Mummy mummy mummy! I want it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I need it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I really need it!
Mummy mummy mummy! I must have it! and so on.

When we don't get what we want, we throw a tantrum.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! It's not fair!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! It's so unfair!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I never get anything!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I hate you! and so on.

We don't like to share our toys.
It's mine! You can't have it! Biff! Thwack! and so on.

Then we learn how to cooperate. Life becomes much more peaceful, although children who still are selfish arseholes can be a right pain in the arse! With all of this in mind...

I've often mentioned a documentary by Adam Curtis called The Century of the Self, Part 1: Happiness Machines. As it's regularly deleted from YouTube & Vimeo for copyright infringement, I'm linking to a Google search instead. If you've not watched it, please watch it as it's a "must watch" documentary. It shows how easy it is for propaganda (now referred to as PR) to be used to manipulate populations. The two main groups doing the manipulation are:-

1. Governments.
2. Industries.

Governments want populations to be docile, compliant and sheep-like, to keep the peace, pay their taxes and not ask awkward questions.

Industries want populations to be selfish arseholes and over-consume stuff that they don't need, to maximise profits and keep the economy going.

So there you have it. "Free-thinkers" may think that they are free to do whatever they want, and they may point & laugh at "sheeple" for being such gullible fools, but they've been manipulated just as much as the "sheeple"!

How to lose weight and get slim by eating "fast food" for 180 days.

Hopefully, that got your attention! Please watch the following video.


The secret to weight loss success is this:-
1. Formulate a good plan. A good plan is one that both works and is doable.
2. Stick to it!
3. Exercise mostly increases fitness, but it does increase energy expenditure by a significant amount. See Calories Burned - Walking: 3.5 mph (17 minutes per mile). A 250lb man walking for 90 minutes expends 756kcals.

The vast majority of people who eat "fast food" don't do the above. "Fast food" establishments use every trick in the book to get people to make bad food choices and consume as much as possible.

As people are reluctant to go back for more food (as they think that it makes them look greedy), super-sizing was invented, which allows people to eat twice as much food for less than twice as much cost.

Delicious aromas stimulate the appetite. Added sugar, salt & flavour enhancers increase the food reward.

Bright colours, cartoon characters and toys entice children.

Another fallacy promulgated by a certain dietary camp.

High Carb diets are tasteless and monotonous. Steaks, cheeses & butters for the win.

From http://www.slideshare.net/jer04/taiwan-rice-challenge-17671208

If you think that High Carb diets comprise only potatoes, sweet potatoes or rice all day (which some populations actually eat without complaint), then you're mistaken.

Here's a High Carb diet (the food in the picture can sit on top of Basmati rice, if you like).

From http://gluten-free-zen.com/2011/02/13/asian-chicken-wings-vegetable-stir-fry/

Here's another High Carb diet.

From http://bit.ly/1W2fzqh

And another.

From http://www.recipeshubs.com/muesli/18025

And yet another.

From http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-fresh-mixed-fruit-berries-image14688313

The above can be eaten with animal produce, which includes some steaks, cheeses & butters.

Anyone who claims that High Carb diets are tasteless and monotonous has zero imagination.

Why using macronutrient percentages is so wrong.

From http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Food-Function-and-Structure/Sci-Media/Images/Macronutrient-percentages

1. Deception

Consider Lies, damned lies and statistics, part n+1. Riera-Crichton et al.  

Relative fat intake in %E decreased and obesity increased.

The conclusion:- "Carbohydrates are fattening and fat is slimming." Yeah, right!

Absolute fat intake in grams/kcals increased after healthy eating guidelines (which weren't low-fat guidelines) came out in 1980, according to More Thoughts on Macronutrient Trends.

Gary Taubes & Nina Teicholz use this deliberate misrepresentation of data to create the false narrative that low-fat healthy eating guidelines caused the obesity epidemic in the US. It's a pack of lies.

2. The terms "Low Fat" and "High Fat" are meaningless

Take 55g of fat (500kcals), 125g of protein (500kcals) and 375g of carbohydrate (1,500kcals). It adds up to 2,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 60/20/20. It's a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove 125g of carbohydrate to leave 250g of carbohydrate (1000kcals). It now adds up to 2,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 50/25/25. It's still a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove another 125g of carbohydrate to leave 125g of carbohydrate (500kcals). It now adds up to 1,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 33/33/33. It's now a Medium Carb, Medium Fat Zone diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 62.5g of carbohydrate (250kcals). It now adds up to 1,250kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 20/40/40. It's now a Low Carb, Highish Fat diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 0g of carbohydrate (0kcals). It now adds up to 1,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 0/50/50. It's now a Very Low Carb, High Fat diet.

So, 55g/day of fat can be Low Fat, Medium Fat, Highish Fat or High Fat. Which leads to...

3. Confusion

When someone sees the term LCHF (Low Carb, High Fat), they think it means "Eat less carbohydrate and eat more fat". As changes in bodily stores are determined by Energy Balance, eating more fat leads to a slower rate of weight-loss (or even weight-gain), not a faster rate of weight-loss.

By all means cut the consumption of "bad" carbs, like burgers in buns, chips/fries, crisps/chips, pizza, cake, biscuits/cookies, chocolate and sugar sweetened beverages.

However, if you believe that "good" carbs like vegetable produce, legumes, whole grains and whole fruits make you fat and sick, you need to have your head examined, unless you're in the tiny percentage of the population who have genetic carbohydrate intolerance.

See also Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.

Everyone is different Part 4, Fallacies and another rant!

Cont'd from Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned).

The other day, an article about Ruth Frechman appeared in my Facebook News Feed.

See A nutritionist shares pictures of everything she eats in a day

The article (written by an editor, not a dietician) started "If you're trying to eat right, then following the diet of a nutritionist is probably a good start." This infers that everyone should eat the same diet and that diet is what Ruth Frechman ate on that particular day.

Uh, nope! This doesn't follow. The whole article is based on a non sequitur fallacy.

From the reactions on Facebook, you'd think that Ruth Frechman had just admitted to being a serial kitten-murderess. The link to the above article had the following accompanying text:-
"Imagine booking an appointment to see a nutritionist in the hope that it would improve your health and appearance...

And this haggard looking, snack-munching zombie greeted you at her office."
Dismissing someone's knowledge because of their diet and/or appearance is an ad hominem fallacy.

I posted the following status:-
"As I'm unable to leave comments on that News Feed item, I'm sharing it, with the following observations.
1. Dismissing a person's knowledge because of what they look like is an ad hominem fallacy.
2. Insults are scraping the bottom of the debating barrel. Stay classy!
3. The main reason people go to a dietician is because they are fatter than they want to be. If YOUR logic is that a person should look as though they're implementing their weight-loss knowledge and it works, would YOU get weight-loss advice from the man in the blue shirt?
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sIrXqvtuBo4/maxresdefault.jpg
EDIT: Also https://igcdn-photos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/sh0.08/e35/p640x640/11380280_1078302272204224_535077602_n.jpg"

Yesterday, the following post appeared in my News Feed:-
https://www.facebook.com/rannoch.donald/posts/10156093095785104
"In an article worthy of the Onion, Ruth Frechman provides conclusive proof that being a registered dietitian nutritionist means absolutely nothing. But wait...she is the author of that dietary classic "The Food Is My Friend Diet"

The very fact that this person has some degree of qualification and the implied authority that goes along with it suggests that we have reached the apex of nutritional stupidity and ignorance. The fact that Business Insider deem this worth sharing tells us they should stick to what they know.

So, join us as we snack on Popcorn, eat M&Ms, chug down fortified fruit juice, eat Quest bars and chewing gum...

There is an actual meal in there at one point, but it looks decidedly like something you might feed your dog, food is obviously not her friend, it's her fix.

Frechman, by her own account, seems to spend her days stressed, tired and hungry, and feels suitably entitled to share her own brand of self loathing with anyone who will part with the $.

Cut out the static. Learn to cook. Go for a walk. Breathe."

Uh, nope! We don't know how busy Ruth Frechman is, how much free time she has, what facilities she has for preparing meals and what foods she likes to eat. She's criticised for eating treats like popcorn and M&Ms, even though she's slim and apparently in good health.

Here's a link to her book:- http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Food-Is-Friend-Diet/dp/0984597913#reader_0984597913 Go to Page 33 and criticise THAT.

I can only conclude from some of the comments left on the above Facebook post that the world has a lot of judgemental arseholes.

How we lose weight: Oxidation of carbohydrate & fat in the body.

1. Oxidation of Carbohydrate in the body.

Glucose is C6H12O6, or 6(CH2O)

6(CH2O)+ 6(O2) → 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) + energy

Oxygen is inhaled. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled. Water is lost in breath, wee, poo, sweat & other bodily fluids.

As 6 molecules of Oxygen produce 6 molecules of Carbon Dioxide, the Respiratory Exchange Ratio (RER) is 6/6 = 1

Converting molecular weights into their gram equivalents, 180g of Glucose combines with 192g of Oxygen to produce 264g of Carbon Dioxide plus 108g of water plus ~3,012kJ of energy. I'm using kJ rather than kcal, as the human body expends energy as mechanical energy (force x distance) and heat energy.

2. Oxidation of Fat in the body.

Fat is three fatty acids (Stearic Acid, say) attached to a Glycerol backbone. As ~95% of the energy released from a fat is from the three fatty acids, I'm ignoring the Glycerol backbone, to keep the maths as easy as possible.  Stearic Acid is CH3(CH2)16COOH. I'm approximating it to 18(CH2), to keep the maths as easy as possible.

54(CH2) + 81(O2) → 54(CO2) + 54(H2O) + energy

Oxygen is inhaled. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled. Water is lost in breath, wee, poo, sweat & other bodily fluids.

As 81 molecules of Oxygen produce 54 molecules of Carbon Dioxide, the RER is 54/81 = 0.67

Note: The RER for fats is actually 0.7, as the Glycerol backbone is converted into Glucose by the liver. As the RER for  Glucose is 1, this raises the RER of my approximated fat by ~5%.

Converting molecular weights into their gram equivalents, 756g of approximated fat combines with 2,592g of Oxygen to produce 2,376g of Carbon Dioxide plus 972g of water plus ~28,468kJ of energy.

We lose weight by breathing, weeing, pooing, sweating etc. See also Majority of weight loss occurs 'via breathing'.

This doesn't invalidate Energy Balance, as the kcal/kJ values for foods merely represents the amount of chemical energy that can be released by oxidation of the various fuels in the foods. See Why Calories count (where weight change is concerned).

We gain weight by consuming fuels & water.

Variations in weight change for a given Calorie change - An Engineer's Perspective.

Another techie post, inspired by Insulin Doesn't Regulate Fat Mass. Consider the inverting amplifier using an Op-Amp, below:-

From HERE

As the amplifier is inverting (i.e. a ↑ input on V_in results in a ↓ output on V_out), the feedback from V_out via R₂ opposes V_in via R₁ at the - terminal of the Op-Amp.

If R1 = R2 and V_in changes from 0V to 1V, the change in V_- (the voltage on the - terminal of the Op-Amp) varies with A (the magnitude of the Op-Amp gain) as follows*:-

A_____________Change in V_-(V)
∞_____________0
1,000,000_____~0.000001
1,000_________~0.001
100___________~0.01
10____________~0.08
8_____________0.1
5_____________~0.14
3_____________0.2
2_____________0.25
1_____________~0.33
0_____________0.5

As the body operates on biochemical principles, slopes of input/output transfer functions aren't steep at their steepest points. E.g.

From http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/69.long

Therefore, the gains in the various parts of the Leptin "adipostat" NFB loop are not very high. Therefore, there will be a significant variation in weight change vs Calorie change, and there will be significant variations in the variation due to loop gain variations from person to person.

Insulin Resistance makes the slopes of  the above input/output transfer functions shallower, reducing the gain in the system. This increases the variation in weight change vs Calorie change. For ways to reduce Insulin Resistance, see Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.

*In case anyone thinks that I've made the numbers up, here's the maths:-
Current in/out of the - terminal of the Op-Amp = 0.
∴ I_R1 = I_R2
I set R1 = R2 to keep the maths simple. By Ohm's Law, V = I * R.
∴ V_R1 = V_R2
With a 0V input:-
All currents & voltages = 0.

With a 1V input:-
V_R1 = 1 - V_-
V_R2 = V_- - V_out.  As V_out is negative, - V_out is positive.
- V_out = A * V_-
∴ V_R2 = V_- + (A * V_-)
∴ 1 - V_- = V_- + (A * V_-)
Rearranging:-
1 = (2 * V_-) + (A * V_-)
Dividing both sides by V_-:-
(1/V_-) = 2 + A
∴ V_- = 1/(2 + A)