> leaving excess sugar that will be converted into fat
De-novo lipogenisis from sugar in practice does not happen humans. If you do something goofy like keep dietary fat under 5 grams and eat hundreds of grams of carbohydrate some monounsaturated fats can be synthesized, but it's fair to say that it basically doesn't happen.
Any fat on your body came directly from fats you ate. Sugar and carbohydrate only matter with regard to weight loss to the extent they displace fat metabolism.
And even if it did, it's good to keep in mind all the energy that is lost converting sugars into fat during DNL, which isn't exactly the most efficient process.
In terms of fattening macro-nutrients, the rank would be fat > sugars > protein.
People keep ignoring this simple fact (that fat is already fat after all), yet argue endlessly about physiological stuff and ancestor mumbo jumbo.
The report had a weird take that the caffeine must be tricking the bees, to their detriment. More likely is that the bees recognize that caffeine is good and healthy. The body of research on caffeine's vitamin like health benefits is enormous. It's simply not to be consider a vice or something to avoid.
> The body of research on caffeine's vitamin like health benefits is enormous.
Vague not-really-scientific claims like this make me immediately suspicious. People who make claims like this usually fall into one of two categories:
1. They're trying to sell something.
2. They're crazy.
I looked back through your post history and found this:
> Cannabis is de facto legal throughout the USA. I repeat: marijuana is in practice legal in America, and all these people talking about drug charges ruining lives don't know what they're talking about.
Yes, this person is misinformed as to the number of ridiculous petty drug charges in America. Still not crazy.
And while I wouldn't say caffeine has "vitamin like" health benefits, since you know, the research on vitamins shows their health benefits are questionable, I would say the body of research on caffeine's health benefits is enormous.
I'm really not sure what happened to your brain that causes it to concoct this delusion, but I'm sorry to see that there are two of you with the same problem.
I don't understand the issue with that statement. You understand what "in practice" means right?
I'm not saying it's technically legal, just that the legal repercussions are so low that no one seriously considers them when choosing whether or not to smoke marijuana.
> I'm not saying it's technically legal, just that the legal repercussions are so low that no one seriously considers them when choosing whether or not to smoke marijuana.
> Is that not an accurate statement?
That is not an accurate statement. Incarceration isn't enough of a legal repercussion for you? Plenty of people are incarcerated each year for possession.
Also, you've significantly backpedaled by saying "choosing whether to smoke marijuana". "Marijuana is legal" is a statement about a lot more crimes than smoking (which in fact is actually legal--if somehow a lit joint fell out of the sky and landed on your lips, it would be legal to inhale). Possession, manufacture, sale, and paraphernalia are all illegal. A large portion of people incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes are incarcerated for crimes that aren't smoking or even possession.
And that's not even looking at drug testing and its employment implications.
Depends on your circumstances. Like all widely applicable but unevenly enforced laws, this gives selective enforcement power to the authorities. If you're a regular guy of no particular interest to the government or police, you can toke away pretty securely. If you need a clearance for your job, no. If the police are looking for a reason to take you in, a seed in your car - or the claim of a marijuana odor - will be the excuse.
No, of course not. But "the legal repercussions are so low that no one seriously considers them" is not accurate, as I'm sure you see now. Some of us are in a position to flout various laws, others are not.
The college admissions system has encouraged the arms race mentality. The SAT has been repeatedly reworked such that test prep works better. I really doubt involvement in the summer activities they apparently value indicates anything about qualification other than parental resources and involvement.
The only way Rotten Tomatoes is useful is if you look only at the negative ratings. All kinds of horrible schlock that has mass appeal gets "certified fresh." But isolating negative reviews: If idiots dislike it then it's probably good; If the negative reviews sound cogent then it's probably bad.
I usually go for a metric along the lines of Chesterton's Fence: do the negative critiques seem like they're dismissing the film out-of-hand, or do they seem to show an understanding what it was going for and still think it failed to do it well? Roger Ebert was usually pretty good about this, which gives his truly scathing reviews that much more bite [1].
my favorite bit: "The director, Roger Christian, has learned from better films that directors sometimes tilt their cameras, but he has not learned why."
I generally feel the same, but was woefully misled by a detailed, thorough, but overall negative review of "Spring[1]", which I found to be a delightful genre-bending tale that really surprised me.
I'm not suggesting it was the best movie of the year, by any stretch, but where the reviewer kept insisting that the alleged plot holes were completely unexplainable, I found that perhaps she just didn't "Get It", because not only were the holes absent from my viewing, but where she found holes, I found explanations that actually made sense (y'know, within the context of a film anyway).
The problem with Rotten Tomatoes scores is that people want to treat them as a measure of how good a film is...it's a natural tendency considering it's a score on a continuum. But what Rotten Tomatoes scores actually represent are a measure of what percentage of people a film will please enough to give a positive review. Just like the The World's Funniest Joke [1] (which most people find "meh, kinda funny"), a movie can rate very highly on Rotten Tomatoes without rating very highly on anyone's list of movies.
But most of the films we'll enjoy are more polarizing. A smaller group of people will really like the film and a sizable group will dislike it. As such, Rotten Tomatoes is a really terrible way to choose a good movie and a really great way to avoid bad ones.
Movies on Rotten Tomatoes only need to have 60% positive reviews to be "certified fresh." It's a low bar. If you want to find good movies start at the ones over 80%.
Really? He's well-known for picking contrarian views just to get hits, causes problems at events, and is pretty much shunned by the film community. Even Ebert called him a "troll".
It's interesting that you bring up Ebert because I would apply your original comment to him. Ebert is spot on about the redeeming qualities of many films, but in retrospect he focuses a lot on the positives. I don't think this is due to him appealing to the "idiot masses", but rather it's a product of how he views film. No matter which review I've read, the only impression of Ebert I've had is of someone who loves film and its ability to convey the human spirit.
As for calling Ebert himself an idiot the man had seen pretty much every movie that deserves acclaim so it's silly to think he doesn't have a huge library to compare to or isn't qualified to talk about film. He even kept reviewing after having his lower jaw removed because of cancer. The only reason I'd call him an "idiot's reviewer" is because he never bothered with pretentiousness or overanalysis in his reviews.
What Ebert did for the most part was accurately say whether or not the masses would find a film enjoyable. He was very good at his job.
A film critic should aspire to do more. He should be critical and hopeful educate the audience on some level. Ebert's reviews were more like restaurant reviews.
The pants are cut for squishy office drones. It's for guys carrying an extra 12 pounds who still want a modern tapered cut. The quality is pretty much standard disposable American clothing, that is to say a pair of pants will be visibly disintegrating after about ten washes.
Ah yes, the "American slim fit". Most shirts I try on are too tight on the chest (40" chest, medium should fit normally in most brands), but the waist is... massive (31" waist). Probably for a man expecting to have a child.
Disagree I've found their chinos to be more form fitting and comfortable than Banana Republic and I dont have 12 extra pounds. The quality has also been better than BR, most of the chinos I had from BR barely lasted a year...buttons falling off and fraying at the seams/pockets vs my bonobos which have lasted longer. Plus bonobos have nice patterns on their pockets it really sets them apart.
Every time I ever got high on weed I felt lingering effects for about three days. I've never experienced this with anything else. It always seemed to me that people who smoke weed a couple times a week or more often might be slightly under the influence almost continuously and not even realize it.
That simply doesn't happen in America. Cannabis is de facto legal throughout the USA. I repeat: marijuana is in practice legal in America, and all these people talking about drug charges ruining lives don't know what they're talking about.
The only way you get serious charges or any jail time at all for marijuana in America is when you've been arrested for serious crimes, but a District Attorney goes with "possession" for the plea deal. It's just easier that way.
You are either incredibly misinformed or you are an out-and-out liar.
For instance, a drug charge of any kind, even just a misdemeanor for paraphernalia precludes any Federal Student loans from being offered. My younger brother was arrested with a pipe containing some cannabis residue and was unable after that point to receive any Federally subsidized student loans.
Some 20,000 inmates in US prisons are currently incarcerated for cannabis possession and trafficking.
There was a young man of 19 years of age down here in Texas that was arrested after he was ratted out by some teenage customers who were themselves arrested and flipped on their dealer to save themselves. He was arrested with cannabis and cannabis oil along with a pan of brownies he had made with the oil. The Williamson County prosecutor sought to treat the entire volume of brownies as drugs and the defendant was facing LIFE in prison over some cannabis brownies.
So yeah, you either need to inform yourself better or you need to stop lying.
You are misinformed, there were over 700,000 arrests made for marijuana last year. Even without jail time, a possession charge can have serious consequences for young people. Being ineligible for federal financial aid, losing your job, and losing public benefits just to name a few.
Imagine what better things our police officers could be doing if they didn't have to churn a kid through the system every 51 seconds.
You don't get it. Those people get hit with narcotics charges because the cops and D.A. know exactly who they are and the long list of other crimes they've committed.
People who simply use or sell some marijuana and that's the extent of their "illegal" activity, they don't wind up in prison. Doesn't happen.
Nothing can be called "de facto legal" when hundreds of thousands of people are arrested for partaking in it each year. Prison time or not, possession charges can have serious consequences for many.
Not true at all. Out side of progressive areas like major coastal cities posession of marijuana can in some cases be a felony offense. Contrary to what you have stated, people ARE arrested regularly for simple possession of the drug, almost always meaning very limited life prospects in the future.
This is pure disinformation. I was arrested for possession of marijuana in college. There was no other charge, there was no other crime. I was a white middle class male stopped in a middle class suburb of a smallish college town in the midwest.
You got a small fine. At no point were you at any risk of facing incarceration. You were also probably doing something stupid and very annoying like stinking up the floor in a dormitory. This illustrates how the drug laws in practice work.
Instead the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) are running
minorities out of their neighborhoods by bidding up the
price of the land.
Uhh, that's pretty much the plan. The landowners in places like SF and DC want to watch their holdings achieve lower Manhattan valuations. The history of NYC through the 90s proved the way you do that is demographic transformation.
Yes.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/humans-feas...