> These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion.
Not been to the guido hood lately?
2,053 karma · joined February 28, 2007
Not been to the guido hood lately?
Do share.
I hope you know what I mean by observational and understand how it's a worthless way to develop understanding. It's for forming hypotheses.
Resistance training reverses aging in muscles: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleUR...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_ea...
Short bursts of intense exercise every few days could dramatically cut the risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, according to an expert.
"If we can get people in their 20s, 30s and 40s doing these exercises twice a week then it could have a very dramatic effect on the future prevalence of diabetes."
Strong people live longest (I post this despite acknowledging it is also model derived garbage): Jonatan R. Ruiz and his co-authors tested more than 8,000 subjects aged 20 to 80 for muscular strength. They grouped individuals into three categories of strength and found that the age-adjusted risk of cancer was 17.5 per thousand in the weakest group, 11.0 in the middle group, and 10.3 in the strongest group. The weaker groups also had higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol, more cardiovascular disease, and more of them had diabetes. (Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers Prevention 2009;18(5):1468–76).
>the actual study behind your NYT link paints a different picture than the NYT article did
No, it incidentally raised a question, just as the previous link about heart rhythm problems in cyclists raised a much more strongly indicated question about exercise induced damage.
I don't have an ax to grind. I literally don't want people trying to get in shape to waste large amounts of time and hurt their knees and so on doing long distance running when it is so much inferior for losing weight and maintaining fitness. I want to steer them in the right direction. They will have so much more success training in other ways.
It is common knowledge at this point that interval training, sprints, and properly done strength training produce all the same cardiovascular health benefits as distance training but without the repetitive stress and other physiological stresses of long distance. Also without the huge time investment. Also with much better body fat percentage measurements. You can use google as well as I can.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/for-heart-health-sp...
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/11/01/sho...
Why didn't they just look at dead olympic athletes? That would be an interesting and potentially worthwhile study. Actually, I know why: that study would have been hard work whereas for this garbage all they had to do was plug a canned data set into some silly unverified pharma model they tweaked for their own agenda.
http://www.theheart.org/article/243897.do
Endurance sports can mess up your heart rhythm.
Here's the first google result for "runners die young": http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/ehn273v1.pdf
"The current report demonstrates a high prevalence of advanced coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial scar formation in see- mingly healthy marathon runners aged >50 years."
Compared to whom? Serious racquet sport competitors? Power lifters? No, compared to couch potatoes with lousy diets. Well no shit. That's not the point.
It's very important with the paleo stuff not get caught up in what I've seen aptly described as "food reenactment." Honey and many starchy roots are technically "paleo", but you should still mostly avoid them. Brains and colon meat are definitely paleo, but you can't feasibly purchase them. "Paleo" is a good starting principle but in the modern world it's insufficient and you have to go with the research and what works for you.
Talking about the ease of crossing the border in El Paso is irrelevant to the question of whether large numbers of people were illegally finding work in the US.
The Chinese you talk about were episodically shipped out en masse. Kind of makes my point more than yours.
There you go, wiseguy.
Also, I would say experiment with dairy. Dairy makes me feel great. Full fat yogurt is a fantastically cheap and healthy central component to a meal if it agrees with you (I think ethnicity is relevant here). Yogurt has minimal lactose. So what if cavemen didn't have it.
Eggs and dairy are the best foods I know of. I normally eat four eggs a day (scrambled in lots of butter) and have a large glass of half and half, or sometimes I even drink straight up cream. Full fat yogurt is a fantastic food. I try to dominate my calories with saturated fat. The research is now clear that this is perfectly healthy. It's also a very efficient way to eat because I can very comfortably eat only two meals a day about half the time. Fat sticks with you.
Take vitamin d3 every couple of days. The research that has come out in the last few years on vitamin d is fairly shocking. Most people are deficient and it's a huge risk factor for infections and cancer. We are built to spend almost every day outside in the sun, generating vitamin d in the skin, but people don't do that now, so supplement.
As for exercise, sprint work and brief, intense strength training sessions are the best. Two 20 minute lifting sessions a week are sufficient exercise if that's all you can afford, but you must do it intensely. I frequently dry heave a bit in the shower after. Jogging and cycling are much inferior from a health perspective. You do want to build muscle mass and increase growth hormone and testosterone levels. Muscle buffers insulin. Jogging basically just burns calories and temporarily ramps up metabolism. It has minimal benefits compared to other forms of exercise. When I do go out biking and running I'm always amused by how fat the vast majority of runners on the trails are.
Don't take health advice from people who look like shit or work out like it's their job. I'm always shocked by the number of dough boys pontificating who get taken seriously. Demand a full body picture of anybody purporting to give lifestyle health advice, and if they pass that test make sure they aren't some freak wasting five hours a week working out. I'm 5'10 with a 29 inch waist, noticeable muscle mass, a six pack, and a very low body fat percentage. I spend at most two hours a week in physical activity and often nothing at all. I have turned a couple other people on to eating and exercising this way with very good results. Avoid starch/sugar, work out very hard infrequently and on an empty stomach, and you will get cut and healthy. The high saturated fat intake is optional, but I personally recommend it.
http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/28/1-eliminate-sug... http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/latest_articles.html http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/03/an_introduction.html
People's attempt make this about a physical wall is absurd. It's not about a wall. It's about many measures. Also, it is rather easy to prove that someone is an illegal alien. Hey, Japan makes foreigners carry an alien registration card and if you can't produce one you might find yourself on a flight out of the country. Not that I recommend this approach, but it's quite ridiculous to assert it's impossible.
> Have nanotech magic-growth fences been invented and I didn't notice?
The border was fairly tight for most of US history. Don't pretend this is a technology problem. This is a corruption and lack of will problem. It could be solved in short order given the will. As I alluded to, Ike responded to a growing problem and effectively dealt with it in the space of about three months. It remained solved pretty much until the early 70s.
Bollocks. You're repeating industry propaganda. Some farms on the margin may go, but so what.
How about silicon valley takes a hiatus from frivolous social apps and make some good fruit picking robots so nobody has to do it? It wouldn't make business sense now, but post deportation it might.
You want to redefine marriage, but by the current definition there is no inequality. You are as free to marry as anyone else.
Your desired redefinition is stupid for two reasons: 1) The obvious biological and social dynamics of heterosexual reproduction. 2) The entire first world has shared a common definition of marriage whereas those places with weirder norms are all shit holes. It's a proven institution and fucking with it is a dangerous slippery slope. This is not about mean religious crazies who want to make you sad. There's a lot more at stake when you go tinkering with this stuff.
It would be very cheap right now because there is a lot of idle shipping. You load the illegals on boats and drop them off at a home port. In the case of Mexico you take them to the far south, not just over the border.
This can be done and it would have massive popular support.
Naturalization is a horrible idea. We need to get the illegals out and seal the borders. America needs zero immigrants with less than a high school diploma, especially right now. Nobody making less than $90K should be let in this country to work, period.
You can express your love through marriage: marry a woman. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron.
To the extent heterosexual marriage gets special legal benefits over other partnerships, I'm in favor of equalizing all that. But gays can't "marry" any more than two elderly widowed sisters living together can marry. It's not the same thing.
Your choice of phrase "express my love through marriage" gets right down to the heart of it. Marriage is not for an expression of love. It is a social institution of special standing. It is for creating the next generation. It is not for "expressing love" or "finding happiness."
It's core to the language; very common usage. Context overloading is very core to the language. I don't know what kind of programming you could do that wouldn't involved references used in this way.
If you want to talk about the rough edges, I can do that. I actually know and use Perl. But when people who clearly have not invested much time with the language try to criticize it's always idiotic. I mean, let's talk about the 'each' operator or the archaic format stuff. The basic syntax of the language is fine; you just don't know it.
Maybe the first time you see it, for at most two minutes once in your entire life.
I kind of wonder if the people who freak out about this syntax stuff have ever studied a foreign language. Do they scream and run out of the room every time they hit an alien grammar construct?
I see no basis for this interpretation. Perl 6 has not been detrimental to Perl 5. Perl 5 and its ecosystem has remained perfectly competitive with all relevant alternatives. What was supposed to have happened in Perl 5 in recent years that didn't?
Perl 6 is an ambitious attempt to create a new language and infrastructure for the next ten years (unfortunately on a shoestring budget). The only valid question is whether this was something worth pursuing at all.
Of course they are.