TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
be indentical yet have TDEEs that vary by over a thousand calories despite being nearly equally active
Either we have very different definitions of the word "identical", or i am going to need a source on that claim. It seems to be farcically untrue at face value.
I'm sorry, but you have disproven nothing, and your comments about willpower are frankly irrelevant. Willpower is just a modifier to your calories input, and calories output. If you completely lack the will to put down the donut and go for a run/swim/whatever, and have no interest in balancing or reversing the energy flux of your body, then sorry your ass is fat and will get fatter barring external intervention. For proof of this, I refer you to Novo Nordisk's stock price.
All successful diets must deal with the fundamental truth of CICO, it cannot be otherwise. You can adopt any number of strategies for managing the two halves of the equation, but you cannot pretend the equation does not exist. The universe has no complaint department.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
CICO is not a diet plan, it is a description of the fundamental physics that govern bodyweight. My comment is not an endorsement of any diet plan, but a reaction against the, as demonstrated by the storm of replies, substantial contingent of people who will do absolutely anything other than admit you must create a net gradient in a body's energy flux to achieve change.
The strawman is comments about "willpower" or "different basal metabolic rates"- these are simply inputs to be considered but not a reason to pretend the fundamental equation is not what it is.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Yes, this is trivially true for say, tall people burn more energy by virtue of having more surface area to radiate heat.
Overfeeding studies show enormous individual variability as to what percentage of surplus calories are stored as fat or burned off.
I have yet to see one of these, properly controlling for things like height and weight, that demonstrates an effect I would call "enormous variability". Low single digit percentages, sure.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
"Yo momma so fat she halted the expansion of the universe!"
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
You are completely misstating the point of CICO- it is the fundamental truth of body weight from which all other successes must derive, but it is not a prescription for success. Upthread 07mk has a good description- you have to look at the CI and CO components and make for former smaller than the latter. Whateve strategies work for you to accomplish that goal is your path to success, but denying fundamental truths of physics are not one of them.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
A) CICO necessarily follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is perhaps the most confirmed scientific theory of all time. The day you disprove it is the day physics gets really, really weird and reality as we know it ceases to make sense. So CICO is a theory in the sense that conservation of energy is a theory, which is to say it is as cold and hard of an absolute as we know to exist in the universe, no amount of obesity cheerleading will change that.
B) The effects noted in the study are frankly not that big. Like a 3% increased likelihood of active brown adipose tissue, which might increase total energy expenditure of the bodies resting metabolism of up to 5%. So conceiving in the winter gives your baby a slightly higher chance of being slightly better at burning energy, which is only a benefit if you live in a post-scarsity world.
"You eat too much and you dont exercise enough" remains the core of any and all successful diet criticism.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
is a mostly French thing
Thats because French Aerospace engineers scoffed at things like the F-14 and the B-1 as needlessly complicated and would never fulfill their claimed potential and focused on sexy delta wings instead. (To be fair, in the case of the F-14 they had no way of knowing the sweep was automatically controlled by the air data computer, which just so happened to be the first practical implementation of the microprocessor in the world greatly simplifying the pilots workload, and kept very hush-hush). Given that both aircraft are widely regarded as among the best of their types, and pure delta wings are a thing of the past, history has rendered its silent verdict on the matter.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Contra point on Canada. PP was never the "pro-Trump" pick. He's Trudeau lite, instrad of Carney as Trudeau 2.0. Trump supporters cheering him on are missing the point just as badly as Trump haters cheering his downfall. Frankly there is no pro-Trump option in the Laurentian elite, and there is unlikely to ever be with the current arrangement of Canadaian politics. You would need one of two things to happen- a PM from Alberta, or the current Canadian politcal class to have it hammered into their skulls that they are truly a vassal of the US, probably by a trade war that crashes their economy but leaves America unnoticably effected.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
it could be better
Yes and that is the point of this excercise. Making things better for the average American.
denying prosperity is not honest
I think the average American is being quite honest when they say rising costs for everything combined with stagnant wages does not leave them feeling very prosperous. This recent canard of insisting that the working class disbelieve their lying eyes and consider themselves lucky is very strange to me, especially since it usually comes from those who claim to be advocates for the everyman.
13% over last year.
And theres approximately 10,000% more media hysterics now than in say, 2022 when it was down roughly 20%. This is not whatsboutism, but rather praise for the recognition then that markets get overheated and correct, and number does not always go up. I remain unmoved, and will contiue to DCA as always.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
peace
I would not call the state of the world today "peaceful".
prosperity
For whom? Real incomes have been down for a generation for the average American worker, pretty much every other challenge the working class faces is downstream of that. Also, if you are referring to the stock market a) it is not the economy, and b) as of this minute up on the day.
I like the new term "Panicans" which very succintly describes those for whom a bit of chaos and correction is a world changing event, and contrasts nicely with the Stoics, who just want to have a pint and wait for it to all blow over.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Certainly a possibility, but I think it unlikely.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Yes, because yes. 1945-1979 saw a massive expansion in the American manufacturing sector with wages that were, adjusting for inflation, median wages, and CoL, comparatively much higher than they are today. Now will a new American manufacturing boom look like that one? No, it will be much more heavily automated and high tech, but the funny thing about robots is they still need a large number of people to operate, maintain, repair, upgrade, and pioneer more uses for them. A factory I worked at actually hired more workers despite completely automating the actual assembly line and ended up passing out a lot of raises as people skilled up.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Happily, MAGA does not have to choose between just the two options you listed. There is a middle path where the globalist agenda is crushed via onshoring manufacturing which yes, will increase costs for the coastal elite who own big corporations, but will also raise wages for the working and middle class.
I think it is a serious error to assume the MAGA coalition is held together by a desire to "own the libs". Thats what some figures may cathartically tweet about, but the actual voters that matter care about their jobs, the cost of groceries and morgtages, and their kids education. On all of these the proggo left has failed misrably the past few years, which is why in 2024 the GOP, not the DNC, won the lion's share of the working class vote.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
the disaster predicted by the experts is already underway
Currently SPY is down roughly 3.9% on the day. Which is certainly a bit rough compared to the normal +/- 1% daily churn, but is a roughly 1% type event, so something you would expect to happen more than once a year, but not more than a few times. I am unmoved.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
and the Heard and McDonald islands, which are uninhabited.
But are controlled by Australia. So they get Australia's rate to avoid some enterprising schmuck setting up a nominal presence there to circumvent the tarrifs.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
That sounds like it was a mistake then, and should be addressed. But the presence of error is not justification to just give up.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Yes, that is the proper process, and they are owed due process. The "credible fear" exception that has become the standard response in recent years is so transparently abused that it should be done away with entirely.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
And verification of identification and immigration status is right and proper. That does not take very long, a couple of days at most. What we have now is "due process" that involves multiple hearings with overbooked judges, strung out over months or years, with the alien in question continuing to reside in the country with no restrictions, and if it looks like they arr going to lose they can simply stop showing up for hearings.
One mans due process is another mans gross abuse of the system. The scales of justice demand balance.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
Not going for the obvious "Space Needle Safe Needle"?
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
While I am always reluctant to grant the government any additional powers, I do have to agree with this due process take. Due process only exists if the parties involved sign on to the process. If you are not going to bother to legally arrive, the government should not have to legally bother to deport you, just pack you up and ship you home.
TeknOShEeP
3mo ago
... its not this one. All of those IRS agents are now looking to pump up their numbers in order to keep their jobs. Busting Average Joe for some transparently obvious evasion is an easy win for them.
Next year, when the turnover is settled however...
TeknOShEeP
4mo ago
Cutting the Department of Education != cutting federal funding for education. The US had federal funding for schools before 1979, and will after.
The author of the OP article somehow thinks that bragging about charging higher percentages overhead that most hedge funds (3.4% apparently) while obtaining far worse results is a winning formula. I think it rather nicely highlights the issue.
TeknOShEeP
4mo ago
This is totally false. There is no path to immigration for the vast majority of people. If you support enforcing current immigration law, you support denying millions the chance to live and work in the U.S. for no other reason than they were born outside of it, condemning them to a much worse quality of life in countries full of poverty and violence, and you need to own that.
Yes. The average condition of humanity is indeed full of poverty and violence in an economically disadvantaged country. The fallacy in the pro-immigration-for-all argument is thinking that geographic change (transplanting people from poor countries to rich ones) will solve what is fundamentally a social problem (poor countries are poor and remain so because they have poor-quality people). One only need look at Sweden, Germany, or France to see what happens when you allow in high numbers of low potential immigrants. Current US immigration law as written (very different from what is actually enforced) recognizes this and is designed to filter for only the best, brightest (or at least richest), and highest potential immigrants who will add value to the nation. This is a wise policy that reflects the fundamental instincts of nations through the millenia. It is only recently that society has become peaceful enough for suicidal empathy not to be exterminated by Darwinistic processes, though the jury is perhaps still out on that in the long term.
I firmly believe that if you advocate for less restrictive immigration rules, you should be legally obligated to support those immigrants at your own expense, in your own house. If you cannot put your money and life where your mouth is, you have no business telling the rest of us to do so.
I am not advocating for dismissing anyones self-control issues, in fact I think they are fundamental for any successful diet plan. All I am advocating for is recognition of fundamental truths that, for reasons I do not understand, are vociferously denied by a portion of those interested in loosing weight.
If you do not have the self control to stop eating in abundance, plan around that- maybe substitute foods that can be eaten in large amounts with few calories. Maybe have that donut, but as a treat for a good exercise session. Many wiser people have many better thoughts. But throwing up your hands and saying "CICO is wrong" is not going to help.
More options
Context Copy link