[ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories
Ben Zaiboc
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Mon May 9 13:29:07 UTC 2011
"Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
I wrote:
> > Does that sound reasonable?
>
> Imminently so.
LOL :>
> Any diet that lowers total calories will work. I fully
> agree that someone can eat a high fat diet and lose weight, as long as
> they consume fewer calories. Now try to get a Taubes follower or Paleo
> dieter to agree that someone can lose weight on a high carb diet by the
> same token.
I'm not a 'Taubes follower' but I do follow a version of the palaeo diet, which seems to be doing me good (losing excess weight, feeling and sleeping better, the usual claims), so you have at least one Palaeo dieter who agrees that you /can/ lose weight on a high-carb diet. For a little while, before the cravings become too much and you cave in, abandon the diet, gorge on even more carbs and get fat again. The traditional dieter's story.
Unless you're one of the unusual people (we probably all know one) who can eat all the pasta they like, and stay as thin as a rake. The people who never appear on any dieting studies.
Ben Zaiboc:
> From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org <extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 92, Issue 17
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Date: Monday, 9 May, 2011, 13:00
> Send extropy-chat mailing list
> submissions to
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
> extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Project-oriented networks (was:
> Efficiency of algorithmic
> trading) (Samantha Atkins)
> 2. remind me again.. why not a religion?
> (Samantha Atkins)
> 3. Re: Farmville for real (Samantha
> Atkins)
> 4. Re: remind me again.. why not a
> religion? (Jeremy Webb)
> 5. Re: Cephalization, proles--Where is
> government going?
> (Samantha Atkins)
> 6. Re: Good Calories, Bad Calories
> (Harvey Newstrom)
> 7. Re: Good Calories, Bad Calories (Max
> More)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 15:04:13 -0700
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Project-oriented networks (was:
> Efficiency of
> algorithmic trading)
> Message-ID: <5814B7C5-B2E2-4969-9059-B03F8FCBD096 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 2:14 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 04:12:10PM -0700, Samantha
> Atkins wrote:
> >
> >> I think it is economic collapse of a greater
> magnitude than
> >> seen before bring on the destruction of many
> western and
> >> some eastern technological societies. Beside
> that energy is a piece of cake.
> >
> > A purely financial collapse would be an eminently
> recoverable
> > problem.
> >
> > But the reason for the collapse are systemic, and
> resource
> > scarcity is the key driver.
> >
> >> I can think of ways that would fix energy that are
> actually
> >> doable at reasonable cost within a decade.
> Not so much on
> >
> > A decade scale implies immediate (as: starting today)
> > deployment, with no innovation required. Apart from
> negawatts
> > (cut the US blue whale in half) I can only think
> > of micro co-gen plants first, and solar thermal and
> solar
> > PV second.
>
> Agreed. We have the research behind us to build GW
> and larger molten salt thorium reactors. If we managed
> to get more sane and streamline some of the nuclear red tape
> we could have much more electrical capacity on hand without
> burning oil or NG and so without coal. We could have
> it in that timeframe. Getting rid of oil for IC
> engines would take a while. But with enough energy you
> can make a variety of liquid fuels quickly enough for the
> interim.
>
> >
> > Germany plans to reach 41.6 GWp photovoltaic capacity
> > by 2014. This would mean ability to supply up to ~50%
> > of peak demand load or 4-5% of total demand.
>
> I wish them luck. I don't think this is really
> plausible economically or otherwise, yet. I
> would be happy to be wrong.
>
> - samantha
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 15:07:39 -0700
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] remind me again.. why not a religion?
> Message-ID: <F59E4791-48DF-4C3C-9C43-3383E2282306 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> What? NO!!!
>
> But wait..
>
> We need deep affirmation through action, through conscious
> focus, through fully feeling into and binding with our
> emotion and holding in deepest esteem such a radically
> positive future. It is much more difficult to achieve
> and in all aspects possible affirm that consistently, all
> the way through, without a community of those who also have
> the same deep focus and willingness to deepen it even
> further. It is much easier to do if in
> community - a place to recharge, to contribute, to draw
> from, to be inspired by and to inspire, to help and be
> helped.
>
> There needs to be a consistent pure message, a vision,
> compelling and full of heart as well as
> mind. We can discuss possibilities
> endlessly and indeed must continue to ever more
> constructively do so. But we need to unify into a
> shared dream - shared goals that we polish to greater and
> greater clarity, conviction and effective manifestation.
>
> We need many of the powers and privileges of
> religion. We need to have an open untaxable means of
> donating to the cause we hold dear and its spread and most
> importantly its achievement. Religious tithes and
> offerings and normal non-taxable status of religious
> institutions should do nicely.
>
> We need to pull on not just reason but all the heart, on
> hope, on belief in things not yet, and perhaps many decades
> from being, seen. This does not throw open the door
> for simply believing whatever we wish. That which is
> believed in must be scientifically plausible. The Good
> News is this leaves more than enough room for the
> extraordinarily good best dreams of humanity and more.
>
> We will need that kind of large group cohesion to have a
> chance of moving these dream goals forward as quickly as
> possible. This kind of cohesion is also essential to
> become ?one people? separate from (but membership extended
> to) others. We include others as they
> affirm our creed, on the basis of knowledge of and
> agreements with our goals and enough of our methods to be
> part of the work in whatever way suits each person?s gifts
> and interests.
>
> The question is not:
>
> Can we do this?
>
> Or even:
>
> Should we do this?
>
> The question is:
>
> Will we do this?
>
> Or will we stay lone brilliant quirky cats howling into the
> cosmic night?
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Amon Zero wrote:
>
> > 2011/5/4 John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
> > Amon Zero wrote:
> > >In short, transhumanism appears to be splintering.
> That's not to say that the various facets of transhumanism
> do not heavily overlap, >but that the wheel simply seems
> to be turning once more.
> >
> > The Mormon Transhumanist Association comes to mind
> (you can tell where our booth is at a H+ conference, by
> listening for the sounds of irritated voices and grinding
> teeth)...
> >
> > http://transfigurism.org/
> >
> >
> > Hi John -
> >
> > I must say I've found you guys (i.e. Mormon
> Transhumanists) quite intriguing for some time. There are
> people within ZS working to adapt its principles into a
> religion of sorts (known so far as "the praxis" - small p -
> or "transhuman praxis", where Praxis - capital p - refers to
> ZS as a whole), which gave rise to one of the more
> interesting early discussions / debates. Basically, a slim
> majority of early ZS members were opposed to any 'religion'
> or 'spiritual philosophy' angle whatsoever, *even when* they
> agreed with every single tenet of the proposed belief
> system. So it was the label, the word 'religion' itself,
> that was making them squeamish.
> >
> > Anyway, we went for a compromise in the best
> distributed-networks tradition, allowing the religion
> project to go ahead, but emphasizing that it is just one way
> in which people may choose to engage with the ideas and
> action of offer, which all members are equally free to
> determinedly ignore.
> >
> > If anyone is wondering why we'd bother with a
> religious aspect at all, let's just say that some of our
> members know a large number of sympathetic 'fellow
> travellers' who are some shade of pagan or spiritualist and
> would more naturally grok transhumanism presented that way.
> If the details and principles are the same, I don't see a
> problem myself.
> >
> > Best,
> > A
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110508/9bb27933/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 15:30:37 -0700
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Farmville for real
> Message-ID: <6DD4E0C5-E66E-42E8-A80C-9BE1FF099372 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 4:59 AM, spike wrote:
>
> >> ... On Behalf Of BillK
> > Subject: [ExI] Farmville for real
> >
> >> Spike mentioned a project to allow Farmville
> players to try their skills on
> > a real-life farm.
> > A trial project is now starting up in the UK.
> >
> > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13276102>
> >
> >> It was partly inspired by the online Facebook game
> Farmville and follows
> > the example of Ebbsfleet Football Club which is run on
> a similar basis.
> > Decisions about the running of the team in Kent has
> been in the hands of
> > MyFootballClub subscribers since 2008. ---- BillK
> >
> >
> > Thanks BillK, this gets me half way there. A
> story in Mark Twain's Tom
> > Sawyer has Tom recruiting the local kids to do the job
> he was assigned and
> > pay him for the privilege of doing it. In
> general and depending on the
> > circumstances, farming in America on a small scale
> isn't profitable, so in
> > many if not most cases, the farmer must pay to do that
> kind of work. Most
> > real farmers have another paying job unrelated to
> farming, and live on
> > dreams of making it big, which they seldom do.
> >
> > Since it is so educational and helps connect them with
> the food on their
> > plate and all that, my goal is to figure out how to
> convince the Farmville
> > community to operate my farm and pay me for the
> opportunity. I think there
> > is a buttload of money to be made here. -
>
>
> I love this. Of course! And at the same time
> you build out all that new tele-operated and more autonomous
> robotic gear. Which is just what you need for space
> and lunar infrastructure build out.
>
> What's not to like?
> >
>
> - samantha
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:37:27 +0000
> From: Jeremy Webb <jedwebb at hotmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] remind me again.. why not a religion?
> Message-ID: <COL106-W55AE7782D48CC10FD1AFF5B6850 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
>
> Religion comes from spirit, not from people. If you've
> never managed to push your hands together and get psychic
> contact with a deity via an ordination, then you are not
> doing religion, but some other group activity.
>
> That's my ten cents worth ...
>
> JW
>
>
>
> From: sjatkins at mac.com
> Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 15:07:39 -0700
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: [ExI] remind me again.. why not a religion?
>
>
>
>
>
> What? NO!!!
> But wait..
> We need deep affirmation through action, through conscious
> focus, through fully feeling into and binding with our
> emotion and holding in deepest esteem such a radically
> positive future. It is much more difficult to achieve
> and in all aspects possible affirm that consistently, all
> the way through, without a community of those who also have
> the same deep focus and willingness to deepen it even
> further. It is much easier to do if in
> community - a place to recharge, to contribute, to draw
> from, to be inspired by and to inspire, to help and be
> helped.
> There needs to be a consistent pure message, a vision,
> compelling and full of heart as well as
> mind. We can discuss possibilities
> endlessly and indeed must continue to ever more
> constructively do so. But we need to unify into a
> shared dream - shared goals that we polish to greater and
> greater clarity, conviction and effective manifestation.
> We need many of the powers and privileges of
> religion. We need to have an open untaxable means of
> donating to the cause we hold dear and its spread and most
> importantly its achievement. Religious tithes and
> offerings and normal non-taxable status of religious
> institutions should do nicely.
> We need to pull on not just reason but all the heart, on
> hope, on belief in things not yet, and perhaps many decades
> from being, seen. This does not throw open the door
> for simply believing whatever we wish. That which is
> believed in must be scientifically plausible. The Good
> News is this leaves more than enough room for the
> extraordinarily good best dreams of humanity and more.
> We will need that kind of large group cohesion to have a
> chance of moving these dream goals forward as quickly as
> possible. This kind of cohesion is also essential to
> become ?one people? separate from (but membership extended
> to) others. We include others as they
> affirm our creed, on the basis of knowledge of and
> agreements with our goals and enough of our methods to be
> part of the work in whatever way suits each person?s gifts
> and interests.
> The question is not:
> Can we do this?
> Or even:
> Should we do this?
> The question is:
> Will we do this?
> Or will we stay lone brilliant quirky cats howling into the
> cosmic night?
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Amon Zero wrote:
> 2011/5/4 John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> Amon Zero wrote:
> >In short, transhumanism appears to be splintering.
> That's not to say that the various facets of transhumanism
> do not heavily overlap, >but that the wheel simply seems
> to be turning once more.
>
> The Mormon Transhumanist Association comes to mind (you can
> tell where our booth is at a H+ conference, by listening for
> the sounds of irritated voices and grinding
> teeth)...
>
> http://transfigurism.org/
>
>
> Hi John -
>
> I must say I've found you guys (i.e. Mormon Transhumanists)
> quite intriguing for some time. There are people within ZS
> working to adapt its principles into a religion of sorts
> (known so far as "the praxis" - small p - or "transhuman
> praxis", where Praxis - capital p - refers to ZS as a
> whole), which gave rise to one of the more interesting early
> discussions / debates. Basically, a slim majority of early
> ZS members were opposed to any 'religion' or 'spiritual
> philosophy' angle whatsoever, *even when* they agreed with
> every single tenet of the proposed belief system. So it was
> the label, the word 'religion' itself, that was making them
> squeamish.
>
> Anyway, we went for a compromise in the best
> distributed-networks tradition, allowing the religion
> project to go ahead, but emphasizing that it is just one way
> in which people may choose to engage with the ideas and
> action of offer, which all members are equally free to
> determinedly ignore.
>
> If anyone is wondering why we'd bother with a religious
> aspect at all, let's just say that some of our members know
> a large number of sympathetic 'fellow travellers' who are
> some shade of pagan or spiritualist and would more naturally
> grok transhumanism presented that way. If the details and
> principles are the same, I don't see a problem myself.
>
> Best,
> A
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110508/05bda464/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:45:04 -0700
> From: Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is
> government going?
> Message-ID: <150425D2-A10C-46B5-9955-824D0BEA1714 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> On May 6, 2011, at 7:36 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>
> > On 6 May 2011 03:20, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I. A Capitol Idea
> > Since you are all politicos
> *de nos jours* we might try and
> > evaluate political epimemetics in the past few
> centuries--or to what
> > direction they tend. Being predominantly a
> Western group, we can talk
> > about politics that are more familiar to all of us,
> which manifest
> > most strongly in that great white hippo Liberal
> Democracy and its
> > opponent, libertarianism.
> >
> > Both are concerned with
> freedom, but which is most 'free'? On
> > the face of things, libertarianism seems to be freedom
> at its purest.
> > But it is also true that pure freedom, a la state of
> nature, carries
> > with it the constant stress of death and
> despair.
> >
> > "Predominantly Western" sounds like an eufemism.
> Predominantly "Anglo-Saxon", or even "American(ised?)" could
> be closer to target. :-)
> >
> > In fact, I am always surprised in our little political
> discussions how the great divide seems between those who are
> primarily concerned with i) individual freedom "to do what
> one likes" and those who are primarily with ii) individual
> freedom "from basic and/or not-so-basic needs".
>
> In my case and that of many others here they are nearly
> exactly equal and for the same reasons. The first is
> the only way I believe can enable the second.
>
> >
> > In continental speech, political freedom is (or used
> to be until quite recently) in the first place iii)
> *collective freedom*, as in independence and
> self-determination, at a national, local and group level,
> which of course include the ability of the relevant entity
> to choose for itself the norms to which to obey and under
> which to function.
> >
> > Now, it is worth noting that some tensions exist as
> well between this latter view and the formers, since the
> formers' proponents are only too ready to admit that, eg,
> legislative process is bound to restrict itself to the
> notarisation of the rules which "objectively" serve at best
> freedom of type i) or of type ii), so they are not so
> inclined to grant much scope for the ability of a given
> people to regulate its internal affairs as it sees best (as
> opposed to, say, the intervention of an "enlightened"
> foreign power or international bureaucracy) or for political
> and legal diversity across the world - with the related
> "Darwinian" competition amongst different systems, which
> seems to me as the best possible bet for transhumanism on a
> global scale.
> >
>
> There is a bit too much cultural relativism here. Not
> all cultures are as likely to lead to as happy and empowered
> outcomes.
>
> - s
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110508/69449b9a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:54:37 -0700
> From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com>
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories
> Message-ID:
> <20110508215437.d32794d095cdfcc0018508d9c136b552.0dc46a8543.wbe at email09.secureserver.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> wrote,
> > Anyway, "Total calories in and out accounted for all
> of the weight loss", as opposed to what? magic?
> What possible other mechanism can account for weight
> loss? I'd have thought that we could take the first
> law of thermodynamics for granted here. The statement
> seems to be simply confirming it. IOW, apart from
> saying that biology conforms to physics, it says nothing.
>
> Agreed. This seems obvious to me as well.
> However, this evidence was
> posted (by another poster) because Taubes literally claims
> that
> "calories in and out" do not account for weight gain and
> weight loss.
> He literally argues that carb calories are more fattening
> than the
> identical number of fat calories. He literally argues
> that exercise
> will not help people lose weight. So we are ending up
> rehashing the
> basic laws of physics to argue against these pseudoscience
> claims.
>
> > If not, then we all agree that calories in - calories
> out (in all forms) = weight difference.
>
> I hope you have better luck convincing people of this than
> I have.
>
> > As far as I can see, theoretical, anecdotal and
> personal observations seem to point to fat being better at
> producing satiety than carbohydrates. This would mean
> that a low-carb diet would be easier to stick to, and more
> agreeable generally, than a low-fat one.
>
> Agreed. I think this is very likely to be true.
> This explanation seems
> to fit all the scientific facts without having to reject
> science, fake
> history, and invoke conspiracy theories to explain it
> all. Maybe these
> people are actually eating less calories after all.
>
> > Everyone is different, though, and satiety is a highly
> subjective thing. So my advice would be to try a few
> different diets, try to avoid bias as best you can, and go
> with what works for you.
> >
> > Does that sound reasonable?
>
> Imminently so. Any diet that lowers total calories
> will work. I fully
> agree that someone can eat a high fat diet and lose weight,
> as long as
> they consume fewer calories. Now try to get a Taubes
> follower or Paleo
> dieter to agree that someone can lose weight on a high carb
> diet by the
> same token.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, Security Consultant,
> <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
> CISSP CISA CISM CGEIT CSSLP CRISC CIFI NSA-IAM ISSAP ISSMP
> ISSPCS IBMCP
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 23:09:54 -0700
> From: Max More <max at maxmore.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Good Calories, Bad Calories
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikc=zmSO1+GTSoCJczndreHGi7nkw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com>wrote:
>
> > [snip]. So we are ending up rehashing the
> > basic laws of physics to argue against these
> pseudoscience claims.
> >
> You say you've read Taubes' book. But comments like this
> suggest that you
> have either not read big chunks of it, or filtered it out.
> Your earlier
> comment about Taubes' supposedly violating the laws of
> thermodynamics
> completely ignored his very direct treatment of this. Your
> claims of
> pseudoscience are deeply disappointing and, frankly,
> shameful. What you mean
> is that anyone who doesn't agree with your vegetarian views
> are using
> pseudoscience.
>
> This is deeply disappointing
>
> --- max
>
>
> > Imminently so. Any diet that lowers total
> calories will work.
>
>
> Yes, but for how long. You willfully ignore the utter
> failure of diets to
> keep weight off. Any reduced calorie diet can remove fat,
> but almost
> everyone regains it. A low-carb diet makes it much easier
> to maintain.
>
> The whole simplistic idea that all that matters is calories
> consumed vs.
> calories expended by exercise ignores all the other
> mechanisms by which
> calories can be used up.
>
>
> --
> Max More
> Strategic Philosopher
> Co-founder, Extropy Institute
> CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
> 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
> Scottsdale, AZ 85260
> 877/462-5267 ext 113
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110508/a5614911/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 92, Issue 17
> ********************************************
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list