Post Reply
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Is Global Warming making you fat?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2012 - 12:27PM #11
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

My down fall is more vegetarian:


 Fried Potatoes, usually cooked in corn or vegetable oil.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2012 - 12:53PM #12
mountain_man
Posts: 38,806

Mar 22, 2012 -- 12:27PM, Roodog wrote:

My down fall is more vegetarian:


 Fried Potatoes, usually cooked in corn or vegetable oil.


I use garlic infused olive oil.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2012 - 1:01PM #13
farragut
Posts: 3,946

"I use garlic infused olive oil."


 


 


That's what I use for kale, spinach, dandelions, etc.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 22, 2012 - 1:27PM #14
mountain_man
Posts: 38,806

Mar 22, 2012 -- 1:01PM, farragut wrote:

"I use garlic infused olive oil."


 That's what I use for kale, spinach, dandelions, etc.


I use it on just about everything. I've even used it in home made bread.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2012 - 6:10PM #15
mindis1
Posts: 7,532

The hypothesis that CO2 (not increased global averaged temperature) causes animals (not just humans) to eat more and become fatter due to acidifying the blood is rife with problems. The primary problem is that the authors were just unable to provide any empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. In the only study conducted by the authors, “6 healthy young males [were] randomly exposed to ambient air or 8000 p.p.m. CO2 for 7.5h in respiration chambers.” Yes, six! And, yes, 8000 ppm CO2! The study was apparently not double-blind and doesn’t even mention being blind to the participants; it did not produce statistically significant results and lacked statistical power. www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v2/n3/full/n... The authors do not mention that the conditions under which the subjects ate were controlled in any way. Did the three CO2-exposed subjects merely order a meal at the cafeteria that happened to average a relative 6% additional calories? Yes, 6%! That would be less than the caloric difference between a hamburger and a cheeseburger. I doubt that, short of carefully measuring and testing, any of us can distinguish a 6% difference in calories of a meal, e.g., the difference between eating an 800-calorie meal and 848 calories. The authors did not attempt to determine whether the amount of calories that any subject ate was unusual for that subject--after all, the data show that the relative difference between the amount of calories consumed by the 3 CO2-exposed was greater than the difference in calories between CO2-exposed and ambient-air-exposed participants.


It’s really quite amazing the peer-reviewed junk that gets published these days, and that then gets bandied about by people who have only read the second-hand junk, not the peer-reviewed junk. Apparently the purpose for publishing this hypothesis was to justify conducting useless animal-model experiments, which the authors claim is “[a]n obvious way to test the hypothesis,” which is unequivocally false. There is no animal-model experiment from which one can extrapolate any cause of the recent obesity epidemic among humans in some societies. The authors then acknowledge that the results of animal-model experiments only “might be explained by a decrease in blood pH.” Or might not. And might not tell us anything about the recent obesity epidemic seen among humans in some societies.


The authors do not mention any obesity epidemic among animals in the wild during the past 50 years. Nor do they attempt to explain why there isn’t one if their hypothesis were true.  


There are many people who work in environments of significantly higher CO2 concentrations than current atmospheric levels, such as in greenhouses, where the CO2 ppm is often several times higher. According to the hypothesis, these people should be greatly fatter and more innervated, with great insomnia and decreased libido, compared to the general population. But where is the evidence for this?


I wonder whether this hypothesis is informative or productive in any way? After all, the hypothesis supposes to account for a behavior that 100% of every sample of average humans can demonstrate to have willful conscious control over--what one stuffs into one’s mouth. And the authors’ only proposal to “test” this hypothesis is to conduct useless animal-experiments, which will neither confirm nor falsify the hypothesis.


What about a requirement that every proposal for an animal-model experiment must provide a scientific justification for the experiment? Obviously, it would mean the end of all animal-model experimentation. Because the one thing we can say about animal-model experimentation is that it does not predict effects in humans.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 23, 2012 - 7:10PM #16
mountain_man
Posts: 38,806

Mar 23, 2012 -- 6:10PM, mindis1 wrote:

The hypothesis that CO2 (not increased global averaged temperature) causes animals (not just humans) to eat more and become fatter due to acidifying the blood is rife with problems. ....


Of course you need to turn a "can contribute to" into a "causes" kind of hyperbolic argument.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 3:25PM #17
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Damnit, I just dropped my donut into my glass of soda.


I blame global warming.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 7:04PM #18
Eliascomes
Posts: 861

Mar 15, 2012 -- 8:27PM, mountain_man wrote:

It could be according to a study out today.

Here's the link.

Here's a quote:

When he looked around for other factors, he saw how the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere had also increased in correlation to the weight gain.


He now proposed that orexins, a type of hormone which reside in the brain and stimulate wakefulness and energy expenditure, may be affected by CO2.



I guess the conclusion here is that if you want to loose weight; don't breathe.




 I wouldn't never had guess......, I thought it would had been the chemicals and the growth horomones that they're putting in our food and water. And all the time it was the air that I breathe. I'm surprised that it wasn't the Butler also. That is a very logical theory......., The air. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 8:41PM #19
mountain_man
Posts: 38,806

Mar 24, 2012 -- 7:04PM, Eliascomes wrote:

I wouldn't never had guess......, I thought it would had been the chemicals and the growth horomones[sic] that they're putting in our food and water.


No one is putting those chemicals and growth hormones in our water.


And all the time it was the air that I breathe. I'm surprised that it wasn't the Butler also. That is a very logical theory......., The air.


Not the air, but the increasing amount of CO2 that is in the air. I guess understanding science is way too much to ask around here.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 24, 2012 - 9:56PM #20
Eliascomes
Posts: 861

Mar 24, 2012 -- 8:41PM, mountain_man wrote:


Mar 24, 2012 -- 7:04PM, Eliascomes wrote:

I wouldn't never had guess......, I thought it would had been the chemicals and the growth horomones[sic] that they're putting in our food and water.


No one is putting those chemicals and growth hormones in our water.


And all the time it was the air that I breathe. I'm surprised that it wasn't the Butler also. That is a very logical theory......., The air.


Not the air, but the increasing amount of CO2 that is in the air. I guess understanding science is way too much to ask around here.




 too much CO2 will cause the lungs to restrict the flow of air. The more O2 that enter, the more energy a person will have.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook