My down fall is more vegetarian:

 Fried Potatoes, usually cooked in corn or vegetable oil.

"I use garlic infused olive oil."

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

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.

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

I blame global warming.

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.