Why you won’t lose weight with exercise alone

Why you won’t lose weight with exercise alone

People who start exercise programs to lose weight often see a decline in weight loss (or even a reversal) after a few months. Large comparative studies have also shown that people with very active lifestyles have similar daily energy expenditure to people in more sedentary populations.

Pontzer says this really hit home for him when he was working among the Hadza, a population of traditional hunter-gatherers in northern Tanzania.

“The Hadza are incredibly active, walking long distances each day and doing a lot of hard physical work as part of their everyday life,” Pontzer says. “Despite these high activity levels, we found that they had similar daily energy expenditures to people living more sedentary, modernized lifestyles in the United States and Europe. That was a real surprise, and it got me thinking about the link between activity and energy expenditure.”

To explore this question further in the new study, Pontzer and his colleagues measured the daily energy expenditure and activity levels of more than 300 men and women over the course of a week.

In the data they collected, they saw a weak but measurable effect of physical activity on daily energy expenditure. But, further analysis showed that this pattern only held among subjects on the lower half of the physical activity spectrum. People with moderate activity levels had somewhat higher daily energy expenditures–about 200 calories higher–than the most sedentary people. But people who fell above moderate activity levels saw no effect of their extra work in terms of energy expenditure.

“The most physically active people expended the same amount of calories each day as people who were only moderately active,” Pontzer says.

The researchers say it’s time to stop assuming that more physical activity always means more calories. There might be a “sweet spot” for physical activity–too little and we’re unhealthy, but too much and the body makes big adjustments in order to adapt.

Full Text

Who’d have guessed, after millions of years of evolution the body finds it’s own best balance?

Denmark & Wind Power

Denmark & Wind Power

We have had some discussion about the amount of wind power being generated in Denmark, which hit 41% of total electricity in 2014. Denmark is often held up by proponents of wind power to prove that large amounts are both feasible and can be easily integrated into national grid systems.

It is therefore worth putting the figures into perspective.

The first thing to notice is just how small the Danish generation figures actually are, in comparison with the UK and Germany. For instance, output from wind in Denmark was 13.2 TWh, compared to 31.6 TWh in the UK

image

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

It is immediately apparent from these figures that Danish wind output can easily be absorbed into the German grid. In addition, a lot of Denmark’s electricity is exported to Scandinavia, where it can be used for pump storage.

And on the reverse side, it is not a problem for Denmark to import the small amounts of power it needs from Germany and Scandinavia, when the wind stops blowing.

<snip>

The Danish example is in fact comparable to the situation in Scotland, where wind power accounts for 24%. Again we see that the amount of wind power generated in Scotland is dwarfed by total demand in the rest of the UK, where any surplus can easily be sent.

 

 

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables

 

Just because a high proportion of wind power can be managed on a small scale, and as part of a much bigger grid system, does not mean it could be at the UK level.

Full article

Prime example why a Republic is a bad idea

Prime example why a Republic is a bad idea

Before I get into the issue at hand, some background is necessary. Many legal scholars, and indeed, even many members of Congress have admitted that Obama’s war against ISIS is illegal and unconstitutional. One of the best articles I’ve read on why this is the case, was published in the New York Times in 2014, which I covered in the post, Obama’s ISIS War is Not Only Illegal, it Makes George W. Bush Look Like a Constitutional Scholar. Here are a few excerpts:

President Obama’s declaration of war against the terrorist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria marks a decisive break in the American constitutional tradition. Nothing attempted by his predecessor, George W. Bush, remotely compares in imperial hubris.

 

Mr. Bush gained explicit congressional consent for his invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In contrast, the Obama administration has not even published a legal opinion attempting to justify the president’s assertion of unilateral war-making authority. This is because no serious opinion can be written.

 

This became clear when White House officials briefed reporters before Mr. Obama’s speech to the nation on Wednesday evening. They said a war against ISIS was justified by Congress’s authorization of force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that no new approval was needed.

 

But the 2001 authorization for the use of military force does not apply here. That resolution — scaled back from what Mr. Bush initially wanted — extended only to nations and organizations that “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the 9/11 attacks.

 

Not only was ISIS created long after 2001, but Al Qaeda publicly disavowed it earlier this year. It is Al Qaeda’s competitor, not its affiliate.

 

Mr. Obama may rightly be frustrated by gridlock in Washington, but his assault on the rule of law is a devastating setback for our constitutional order. His refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing.

It’s been almost two years since that Op-ed was written, and Obama is still carrying out his illegal war on ISIS with barely a peep from our incredibly corrupt and useless Congress. Indeed, the only thing Congress is scheming to do is to ensure the next President receives a blank check for perpetual war.

From the National Journal:

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell offered mem­bers a snow-week­end sur­prise late Wed­nes­day night: Quietly tee­ing up a po­ten­tial de­bate on the leg­al un­der­pin­ning for the fight against IS­IS.

 

After months of wor­ry­ing that such a res­ol­u­tion—known as an au­thor­iz­a­tion for the use of mil­it­ary force—would tie the next pres­id­ent’s hands, Mc­Con­nell’s move to fast-track the meas­ure sur­prised even his top deputy, Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, who was un­aware that Mc­Con­nell had set up the au­thor­iz­a­tion.

 

The AUMF put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy. Nor would it touch on the is­sue of what to do with the 2001 AUMF, which the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has used to at­tack IS­IS des­pite that au­thor­iz­a­tion’s in­struc­tions to use force against those who planned the 9/11 ter­ror­ist at­tacks. By con­trast, the leg­al au­thor­ity put for­ward by the ad­min­is­tra­tion last Feb­ru­ary wouldn’t au­thor­ize “en­dur­ing of­fens­ive ground com­bat op­er­a­tions” and would have ended three years after en­act­ment, un­less reau­thor­ized.

Read that over and over and over until you get how incredibly dangerous it is.

Zerohedge

The danger obviously is allowing 1 sole person the possibility to give executive orders. It’s no different from a dictatorship. It again proves USA is not a democracy but rather evolving into an Idiocracy. Anyone badmouthing President Putin should look at President Obama. But as the saying goes: Every nation gets the leadership it deserves. Apparently the USA deserves a dictator 

 

 

Answering Questions About GMOs

Answering Questions About GMOs

The strategy here is also clear – whenever you deal with one misconception about GMOs, opponents just slide over to another point which becomes the “real” reason they are against GMOs. The experience is identical to arguing with those who reject the claims of anthropogenic global warming, when forced to give ground on one factual claim (OK, maybe the Earth is warming), they just retreat to another (but do we know that this is bad?).

For some being anti-GMO is an unshakable ideology. The ideology comes first, and the arguments are only used to justify the ideology (Vandana Shiva comes to mind). For many, however, they are anti-GMO or are concerned about GMOs because they have heard the arguments, which give them reason for concern. It is for those people I write, to correct the misinformation so they can better assess the real issues.

Here are the questions I was recently sent with my answers:

1. Allergies. If I am allergic to, for example, corn, and a corn gene is used to modify strawberries which I dearly love does this not put me at risk for an allergic reaction if I eat them?

Allergies is a common concern in the public regarding GMOs. However, there has never been an allergic reaction to an approved GMO. As part of the approval process, they screen for proteins that are potentially allergenic and toxic. Most food allergens are proteins, and proteins that can cause allergies tend to have amino acid sequences in common. These sequences may allow the protein to survive digestion in the stomach, for example, so that it is intact enough to cause an allergy.

There have been allergic reactions to hybrids, however. If anything, GMOs are safer because they are so carefully screened. Scientists are also working on using GM technology to make food that are allergenic, like peanuts, less so.

2. Have interactions between different genes been studied at all?

Yes, but of course with thousands of genes the potential interactions are astronomical. Resulting organisms are tested for their net properties. Imagine, now, not just inserting one gene but mixing in hundreds of genes through hybridization, or subjecting plants to stimulated mutations hoping to get lucky.

This is a common tactic to “just ask questions” that seem superficially reasonable. Our scientific knowledge can never be 100% complete, so there will always be some unknown to point to as a source of fear or uncertainty.

3. Related to no. 1 above, but also in general, the resistance on the part of the food industry to labeling of GMO foods is baffling and troubling. Apart from the fact that it may put people with allergies at risk for an unpleasant or maybe even hazardous reaction, it seems to suggest the existence of something the industry does not want us to know. Otherwise, why NOT label it?

Two main reasons – the anti-GMO lobby has already demonized GMOs. Labeling is part of their plan to destroy support for the technology. It may not work, but that’s their plan. Second, it means having to track the source of all ingredients, which can be burdensome.

Read the Full Text

Groundbreaking Pornography Study Yields Shocking Results

Groundbreaking Pornography Study Yields Shocking Results

Religion still advocates prehistoric times morality

Denying the fact that sexual tinted objects predate any kind of scripture by 1000’s of years this ‘study’ proves religion is the root cause of sexual repression and the resulting sexual aggression towards children, males and females as well as teen pregnancies since religion became an item in humanities suffering

Shocking study results

Wind Power Down To 0.1%


NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

At 5pm yesterday, electricity generation from wind farms dropped to a paltry 72 MW, just 0.1% of total demand of 52.1 GW.

The 24-hour period up to 10.30 pm was little better, averaging just 0.3%

ScreenHunter_3455 Jan. 19 17.32

ScreenHunter_3461 Jan. 19 22.46

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

Fortunately there is still enough gas and coal- fired capacity to fill the gap, but, as the Center for Policy Studies reported last year, this reserve capacity is becoming increasingly tight.

image_thumb122

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/uks-fast-looming-power-crisis/

With coal power station closures already announced for this year, dispatchable capacity will drop to 61.6 GW. However, this reflects then nameplate capacity, which needs to be derated to allow for the likely operational effectiveness.

Assuming a figure of 85% for this, we will be down to 52.3 GW.

image_thumb123

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/uks-fast-looming-power-crisis/

Under the Capacity Market Auction, the government has 49 GW of derated capacity contracted for 2018, the first year of the scheme, and 51 GW the year after…

View original post 176 more words