5 ms·

Thanks for the links on the Hacker diet, the rubber bag concept sounds interesting, I'll check it out. As for my metaphor - actually I think it holds very true

Thanks for the links on the Hacker diet, the rubber bag concept sounds interesting, I'll check it out. As for my metaphor - actually I think it holds very true to what you're saying. You pre-qualified that the fire be hot enough to overcome the dampness of the sticks. That's my exact point. Think of the water as insulin and the stick itself as the fat you want to burn. If you're consistently slamming yourself into insulin shock then you'll never burn fat, and you'll end up looking like most of America(Myself included). It takes very little insulin response to put our fire out. No one is refuting thermodynamics here - simply stating that making the assumption that the body is a perfect machine (Or set at some guaranteed rate of efficiency) is a flawed outlook. Taubes makes a great case for this in his examination of Native American Women and their children.

dalke 14y ago
Now you're using the body's metabolism to explain the metaphor to explain the body's metabolism. I don't think it's supposed to work that way. :) To highlight some of the difficulties: So, insulin shock is the specific heat of water and/or the heat of evaporation? Does fire "slam into" the water? As a technical point, there's a distinction between heat and temperature. The fire does not need to be "hot", it just needs to have enough heat to evaporate some of the water on the new wood, and of course hot enough to catch the wood on fire. At that point the reaction becomes self-sustaining. I don't know how to apply that heat/temperature distinction to the metaphor. If the "fire is out" then what are we using to survive? (These are rhetorical. I think I know the point you're trying to get across.) Also, what does a "perfect machine" have to do with anything? Surely not from a thermodynamics viewpoints. I can't think of anyone who thinks of the human body as a perfect machine, and I have a hard time thinking of what that would even mean.
- Selfcommit 14y ago
  While I'm amused (Really I am, no sarcasm!) with the extension of the fire concept - I think you're just pulling at semantics of my metaphor =) You make a valid point - lets pull heat and temperature out of it. I'll take the whole metaphor out. If I were to waterdown the through process of ketogenic diets (which are what I'm talking about and share some things with Paleo) I would explain them as such: Insulin prevents your body from breaking down it's natural stores of energy. When you eat anything with a high glycemic index (Which is most food in the American diet) you have an insulin reaction. While having an insulin reaction, you don't burn fat stores. If you can't burn your fat stores, you don't lose weight. If you can't burn your fat stores and you run out of immediately available energy your bodies 'fire' dims (You crash after that sugar rush) Ketogenic diets are the only diets that make sense to me, because they so easily explain the different states of weight gain/loss and energy level. I'm interested in hearing other methods of weight management.. but I really feel the ketogenic concept explains the body best.
  - dalke 14y ago
    I'm pleased that use are amused. Pulling at semantics usually gets me in trouble. :) While I understand the hypothesis, we haven't even determined that a 'sugar rush' exists. Quoting from Wikipedia (Fount of All Knowledge), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_high#Nutrition.2C_food.2C_and_drink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_high#Nutrition.2C_food.2C... : > Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered sensitive to sugar. From the citation, at http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769 http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769 : > At least 12 double blind randomised controlled trials have examined how children react to diets containing different levels of sugar.2 None of these studies, not even studies looking specifically at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, could detect any differences in behaviour between the children who had sugar and those who did not.3 This includes sugar from sweets, chocolate, and natural sources. Even in studies of those who were considered “sensitive” to sugar, children did not behave differently after eating sugar full or sugar-free diets.3 > Scientists have even studied how parents react to the sugar myth. When parents think their children have been given a drink containing sugar (even if it is really sugar-free), they rate their children’s behaviour as more hyperactive... If a hypothesis depends on a mechanism we haven't observed, then I don't think it's likely to be real.

dalke 14y ago

Now you're using the body's metabolism to explain the metaphor to explain the body's metabolism. I don't think it's supposed to work that way. :) To highlight some of the difficulties: So, insulin shock is the specific heat of water and/or the heat of evaporation? Does fire "slam into" the water? As a technical point, there's a distinction between heat and temperature. The fire does not need to be "hot", it just needs to have enough heat to evaporate some of the water on the new wood, and of course hot enough to catch the wood on fire. At that point the reaction becomes self-sustaining. I don't know how to apply that heat/temperature distinction to the metaphor. If the "fire is out" then what are we using to survive? (These are rhetorical. I think I know the point you're trying to get across.) Also, what does a "perfect machine" have to do with anything? Surely not from a thermodynamics viewpoints. I can't think of anyone who thinks of the human body as a perfect machine, and I have a hard time thinking of what that would even mean.

Selfcommit 14y ago
While I'm amused (Really I am, no sarcasm!) with the extension of the fire concept - I think you're just pulling at semantics of my metaphor =) You make a valid point - lets pull heat and temperature out of it. I'll take the whole metaphor out. If I were to waterdown the through process of ketogenic diets (which are what I'm talking about and share some things with Paleo) I would explain them as such: Insulin prevents your body from breaking down it's natural stores of energy. When you eat anything with a high glycemic index (Which is most food in the American diet) you have an insulin reaction. While having an insulin reaction, you don't burn fat stores. If you can't burn your fat stores, you don't lose weight. If you can't burn your fat stores and you run out of immediately available energy your bodies 'fire' dims (You crash after that sugar rush) Ketogenic diets are the only diets that make sense to me, because they so easily explain the different states of weight gain/loss and energy level. I'm interested in hearing other methods of weight management.. but I really feel the ketogenic concept explains the body best.
- dalke 14y ago
  I'm pleased that use are amused. Pulling at semantics usually gets me in trouble. :) While I understand the hypothesis, we haven't even determined that a 'sugar rush' exists. Quoting from Wikipedia (Fount of All Knowledge), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_high#Nutrition.2C_food.2C_and_drink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_high#Nutrition.2C_food.2C... : > Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered sensitive to sugar. From the citation, at http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769 http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769 : > At least 12 double blind randomised controlled trials have examined how children react to diets containing different levels of sugar.2 None of these studies, not even studies looking specifically at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, could detect any differences in behaviour between the children who had sugar and those who did not.3 This includes sugar from sweets, chocolate, and natural sources. Even in studies of those who were considered “sensitive” to sugar, children did not behave differently after eating sugar full or sugar-free diets.3 > Scientists have even studied how parents react to the sugar myth. When parents think their children have been given a drink containing sugar (even if it is really sugar-free), they rate their children’s behaviour as more hyperactive... If a hypothesis depends on a mechanism we haven't observed, then I don't think it's likely to be real.