QSIITurbo

This is not true. 50% is too much even if you take into account the whole fat tissue (which is not what you lose when losing weight) and even there for extremely lean subjects with very little fat in the adipose cells. (Maybe anorectic / cacectic subjects are different in this regard for whole-body-average). You've probably read the conclusions of a confused self-taught "expert" who is making hypotheses based on exaggerated figures of water in fat _tissue_ vs. the fat that is lost when losing weight.

As an interesting sidenote: fat people have relatively a lot less water in their fat tissue than lean people.

You can also think about the fact that when you drop triglycerides in water, it will not solute at all. Also, human body creates fatty membranes (cell walls) to absolutely _prevent_ the influx / efflux of water.

It's because people want to have a sense of control and that is achieved in this case by making wild hypotheses about losing weight. It's further complicated by authors like in the linked article wanting to sell controversy and/or diets that are unsustainable or uncomfortable in the long term (soup diets, atkins, feral, etc). Controversy feeds rebellion which in turn is a way of feeling in control.

I think this is making things too complicated with the water calculations, namely the 1:1 ratio. Adipose tissue is almost completely fat, which in turn is hydrophobic. See the picture on this wikipedia page for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adipocyte. The excess fluid (if any relevant amount exists in the body at the beginning of the diet) is lost fast (days) and early in the course of diest and the key is to have a constant, relatively slow (2-4 kgs / month) weight loss.

I didn't want to cut sugar because -- apart from the size of portions -- I didn't want to change the type of food I was eating or my eating habits. The habits include some chocolate with coffee almost every day and moderate alcohol in the weekends (so it's more like a 5/7-day thing). This means I can easily continue the diet and habits indefinitely even after reaching the goal as I reach the equilibrum.

Overweight from start was minimal (4, maybe 5 kgs over BMI 25) but I got rid of the "gut" that was starting to form and it was extremely successful. I actually have no idea what the calorie deficiency was: I just ballparked it for the first two weeks and then kept that while measuring my weight every morning. I'd say it's about 600-700 max with the weekends reserved for no fat-loss.

Anecdotal evidence _for_ a calorie being a calorie: lost 5 kgs in three months by cutting food intake evenly by just reducing the size of meals. Also consumed slightly over 10% of daily intake in sugar (saccarose) which surpasses the recommended level (10% absolute max). Otherwise stuck to official recommendations. Sedentary lifestyle, moderate alcohol consumption.

The magic trick is being able to measure your weight for the first week or two and then keep the same habits until the goal is reached. No fancy apps or diets or nutritionists or whatever required. So a calorie is a calorie.

I assume this fixes the reboot problem:

http://superuser.com/questions/946957/stopping-all-automatic...

I'm managing a friend's Win10Pro machine and so far it's been awesome. On the other hand, OSX which I'm running seems clunky and old-fashioned.

"The issue is psychological - not believing one can achieve the goal, not being ready/willing to fully commit to the goal, feeling too ashamed of oneself to believe one can improve one's situation, and on and on."

And here I was, thinking it was just that you love constantly stuffing large amounts of high-calorie foods down your throats.

People still believe this myth even though "baking" won't fix the problem permanently. If it really was the joints (and baking them would actually do something), then the problem would have gone away. The chips themselves are faulty.

Because it's fantastical to think that some people have superpowers even though that's not the case. As an anecdote, I've met a couple of people who have claimed to have eidetic memories. All have turned out to be full of s++t :)

I still think it's a good metaphor: they eat constantly while still eating regular meals that must be huge. Like probably a lunch and a pizza or two burgers plus lost of soda or alcohol per day. I'd say 3000 kcal easily per day assuming they do at least _something_ (and that's not much) to add to their basal metabolic rate. They are completely in a feeding mode that is required just to upkeep the amount of fat tissue in their bodies. If that doesn't remind you of a barnyard animal, I don't know what does.

I remember the Dungeon Master copy protection. Its weakness was that if the game was even only partially cracked, you'd still have some time to advance the game before the copy protection kicked in and it crashed or killed you so we got pretty far by sheer stamina. Luckily we as kids had a lot of time available for waiting the game to load over and over again. And it _was_ that good of a game even in retrospect.

I also successfully managed to pirate an original Chaos Strikes Back disks by repeatedly copying the data with a (pirated) synchronisation dongle and the Cyclone software. It required several attempts to get the fuzzy sectors correct because I was using a pre-used disk. This technique and the recommendation to use completely blank disks would have been mentioned in the manual of Cyclone but I wasn't aware of it... Since I'd also pirated the software! I was also unaware of the fuzzy bits themselves, so it was just a bit of luck.

Anyway, CSB wasn't as exciting experience as its predecessor. Boring maze-like transforming levels, hard monsters (in the sense that they took a lot of time, not skill to eradicate), little of anything new, etc. Disappointing after all that effort ;)

Probably there is no other possible diagnosis if your thyroid is ok. You can go do tests, but also the treatment probably remains the same (statins, etc.).

About assessing the risk of not taking statins: As I said, the exam you're about to take is only able to give you positive answer (yes, your carotid is sclerotic), not negative (won't say: no, your coronaries or the rest of your arteries are not sclerotic), so it's sort of useless.

What I'm still wondering is how a familial hypercholesterolemy would have been missed during earlier blood tests? It's a pretty standard test here, and 7.8 and 10.3 are extremely high for a fit person.

Dietary cholesterol is linked to blood LDL, because eating phytosterols - which inhibit cholesterol absorption in the gut - will lower your blood LDL. The mechanism can be found online.

I'm not that familiar with the CIMT test, but by quick glance it only tells whether your carotid artery is affected. A negative result won't tell you whether the rest of your arteries - such as the coronary arteries - are affected.

But I'm a bit curious: Who referred you to a test like this in your condition?

Your quotes are about destruction of beta cells (not neural damage). The 140 vs. 150 is a moot point: if you're diabetic, you're supposed to get your blood glucose fixed a lot lower than that.

Added: I read one of the studies, and it doesn't really controvert your doctors quote. It gives fasting glucose target a lot lower than 140 or 150 (as it should be), and 2hr glucose a lot higher than 150.

In essence, I think you're just interpreting these studies as you will without a proper medical training. My advice is: don't start experimenting with your life based on such weak foundation.

Lifestyle or dietary changes don't work if he has familial hypercholesterolemia. You're not supposed to ever adjust your medication without consulting your MD. It's a good general rule that - when broken - can have fatal consequences in serious diseases such as this.

The thing is, if you have familial hypercholesterolemia, some forms have life expectancy of 35 without medications. Patients might have severe atherosclerosis at the age of 10. There is a seriously heightened risk of CVD mortality without statins no matter what you eat or how hard you exercise if you really have it. So in that case your doctor is correct: there's nothing you can do but take medication. But what were your lab results for LDL?

It is possible if the school they graduated from is bad, but even then the point still stands and is even stronger: if they've graduated, they still are better than naive, unschooled individuals who are even worse in educating others. They at least have _some_ idea of the concepts involved.

No, we're talking about mental and especially social development, not just single topics like "calculating" or "biology". Look up development psychology. Care-giving is another subject and even small children can to some extent do that to each other.

Yes, if the person or child is mentally disabled, then there is little that anyone can do once they've reached their maximum capacity. Then a babysitter is required and all that is really needed. However, there are other learning disabilities that can be treated by professionals and will help the child develop more normally.

Even with clearly above average students, it is rare that they reach, e.g., med school before their peers no matter what and the difference is a year or two, which is insignificant. There's also more to maturation than education and some people never become fully mature adults, for instance.

As I said, it is impossible to have 1:1 teacher-student ratio in common education. You seem to assume teaching is just some easy job that anyone can do with little expertise on the subject. In addition to previous examples, we already have personal teachers and students to some extents: parents and their children. Well, we still have bad parents, and we have bad children. Your proposal only works if everyone has high intelligence and education and dedicates their time to teaching. For free! So how much of your time are you currently spending on teaching for free? 8 hours a day? 12 hours? 16?

There are people who mostly attend lectures and read little and do extremely well. There are also people who mostly read and attend few lectures and also do well. The more methods are available, the better the education.

My point in the context of children with learning disabilities was that they must be tended to by adults. I assume you are agreeing with that.

That is just your opinion. Repetition is currently working extremely well since we are able to train experts in fields that require a wide variety of knowledge from various sciences. Medicine, bioengineering, astronomy, military, education, and so on come to mind.

We are also having university "students" tutor younger people. These are called teachers and professors.

All the more reason: children develop a lot in those short years and they can be at very different mental stages.

Synchronous group activities are a necessity because of time and resource limitations, so I'm not making any mistakes nor assumptions. It's impossible to have a 1:1 teacher to student ratio in common education. 1:1 is used sometimes in medical sciences and practical professions that require physical demonstration, at least. For common education, the results are excellent even with larger group sizes. You can judge that by just looking at the plethora of experts graduating every year from numerous professions.

The dialogue is a method and is used in class rooms and lectures when the students ask the teacher questions. They can also ask their peers who have better understanding of the topic. However, printing press made it possible to create text books that allow a lot more information to be learned in much shorter time span and to circumvent the limitations in teachers' capabilities and knowledge. Same for videos, internet, and so on.

As for pathological behavior disorders, they are very real and vary in degree. It may be that you don't have first hand experience on how difficult those can be, and how much they affect groups of children at sensitive development stages.

Yes, that's how long term memory works in the brain. Explaining things and social learning are excellent learning techniques, I'm not denying that. These days smart phones and social media are an excellent tool for communicating ideas with your peers. But it has to happen with peers that are on the same level as you are. Otherwise you are explaining too simple things that you've already mastered.

This "discarding after test" is already and automatically addressed in the education: high school repeats things learned in previous schools and builds on those. Our high schools also have large final exams that require one to be able to understand the whole curriculum of the subject. The grade measures your memory, and understanding because you cannot just memorise everything. The same is true for all education levels.

Children with learning and behavioral disorders are a minority, yes, but they cause the most damage in a group, hindering the natural progression of others so the teacher has to know how to deal with these children. Now, that was just one that I gave you, but even ordinary children often have behavioral issues that stem from their upbringing at home and the teacher has to be able to address that.

Our high school biology ends with relatively detailed information about DNA replication and sequencing using PCR that combines chemistry and physics. Physics includes nuclear physics and electrical engineering. Mathematics contains differential equations and statistics. Chemistry has topics going in to details of organic chemistry. Was Plato talking about those too?

If you feel that there's some problem in education that you can solve better, feel free to get a degree and write a thesis about that.

There's no contradiction, you are misunderstanding my statement. Older children need to go to school to learn stuff like mathematics, history, sciences, languages, and so on. Hanging around and taking care of younger kids all day would be a hindrance to their development.

It's too much to assume that an average child can productively solve problems that are related to raising children with various family backgrounds. How to deal with shy or angry children, conflicts with the family members and so on. While I don't know how it's done everywhere in the world, contrast that to kindergarten teachers that have academic education with focus on teaching (including methods, subjects, psychology, and so on).

If you claim that education hasn't advanced in 100 years tremendously, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. For instance, think about the education of children with mental or learning disabilities. It has advanced a lot in my lifetime, too.

The older are in school learning more challenging things. Most teens would be unable to take the responsibility, and most are not psychologically mature enough to meet today's standards. The modern world is more complicated and education is more advanced than it was, say, 100 years ago.