Some [recent studies] have provided strong evidence that people can sharply reduce their heart disease risk by eating fewer carbohydrates and more dietary fat, with the exception of trans fats. The new findings suggest that this strategy more effectively reduces body fat and also lowers overall weight.
The new study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women -- a rarity in clinical nutrition studies -- who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
"To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that's given these diets without calorie restrictions," said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. "It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that's really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories."And.
In the end, people in the low-carbohydrate group saw markers of inflammation and triglycerides -- a type of fat that circulates in the blood -- plunge. Their HDL, the so-called good cholesterol, rose more sharply than it did for people in the low-fat group.
Blood pressure, total cholesterol and LDL, the so-called bad cholesterol, stayed about the same for people in each group.
Nonetheless, those on the low-carbohydrate diet ultimately did so well that they managed to lower their Framingham risk scores, which calculate the likelihood of a heart attack within the next 10 years. The low-fat group on average had no improvement in their scores.
Labor Day! Labor Day! Do all your shopping at Wal-Mart!
Spider pics below the jump.
read more »
What is that drip of pus running down the wall, from behind the picture I just hung on the wall? The picture that has been sitting, dusty, stored in the corner of my bedroom for a few months?
Oh, I popped this spider, which was living on the back of the picture:
and is now running desperately up the wall, away from the picture, (but we smushed it and flushed it down the toilet like responsible people.)
Clearly one of the grossest things that's ever happened to me.
« hide more
Looks like we have to kill all the cops after all.
Yeah yeah, he should have stopped. He should have been totally complaint. He shouldn't have assumed he was reasoning with human beings. Whatever.
What happens to teen pregnancy rates when you teach sex-ed and contraception in schools? I actually think the state maps at the end undercut the case more than assist it. (My favorite study is the one that shows that '16 and Pregnant' has a measurable decrease on teen pregnancy.)
Also, labeling the axis from 0% to 100% on this graph annoys me.
There was an ESPN interview, where the reporter was kind of obsessed with whether or not Michael Sam was wigging other men out in the showers. Slate gets it right:
Given that openly gay men are a truly new phenomenon in the shower, let's take Vilma's question seriously: Are straight men right to be afraid? The majority of responses to this question have taken an overcompensating "come on, guy!" approach that insists a gay man could never be attracted to his straight shower pals enough to sneak a look.
The truth is, it is within the realm of possibility that a gay man might be physically attracted to a straight man, and he might even steal a glance at that man's body--perhaps unconsciously, perhaps on purpose. Either way, this does not make him a bad person or render him in violation of some kind of gay-straight peace accord; in fact, it merely means that he is a human being expressing sexual attraction in a way that our culture authorizes straight men (and increasingly women) to do as a matter of course. It is a particularly noxious expression of male privilege for a straight man to insist that he not be an object of desire while he sees no problem with passively enjoying a cheerleader's acrobatics or a female colleague's flattering blouse. And it is exceedingly homophobic to demand that a gay man downplay, police, or actively "cover" the most harmless sort of sexual expression simply to preserve a straight guy's precarious sense of his masculinity.
Buck up and be lusted after, men.
Someone set up an alert so we can come back to this after results are in: a substantial non-partisan disagreement about polling forecasts.
Rick Perlstein is an interesting reader. Nice interview.
Follow-up on Cecily McMillian, the Occupy protestor who elbowed the cop, and is fresh from 90 days at Riker's Island. In her own words.
I wonder if it's Cosmo's editing that makes this objectively sympathetic story seem like whining. This part made me laugh:
People often ask if jail is like Orange Is the New Black, but I see nothing similar in incarceration and entertainment. Every day in jail, you are belittled and berated. There's no library, no computers or cell phones. A TV blasts Criminal Minds. I went through a surreal fight for weeks just to get a pair of sneakers so I could run around the yard.
Because really? That sounds just like OITNB.
Even being set free became a trial. On the day of my release, my friends on the outside had helped me set up a press conference across the Rikers Island bridge, to speak for the women in jail. But a CO told me he had been ordered to drive me to a subway station 45 minutes away. I protested but no one would help, so that's where I ended up.
I borrowed a stranger's phone to call my friends, who brought me back to the bridge. I gave my press conference, describing how the women were treated. These women had sustained me, becoming my friends, my confidantes and advocates. And now I am their advocate. I walked into Rikers Island as part of one movement and left as part of another.
Every time she describes a hardship, it ends up sounding...fluffy. Or at least nowhere near what her fellow prisoners are going through.
Lw writes: Possibly this is controversial: I studied engineering, not English. I still can't find a job.
Solving the issue of inexperienced teachers may be even simpler: have schools relax academic requirements for professors and focus far more on hiring effective businesspeople. With a little more leeway, academically-minded candidates will have more freedom to gain job experience, and schools may even attract more talent directly from the business world.
The author is kind of an idiot? "Colleges should be more like business internships" (I'm paraphrasing.) Maybe businesses aren't monolithic, and should train their hires better to fit the job they want done, and we should have public policy that fosters a strong workforce and cheaper college?
It's true that in college, you're learning from someone that has very little experience in the kind of job that you'll most likely be doing. Jobs that don't need the skills that you get from college (becoming a better writer, thinking more critically, reading and manipulating abstract symbols and diagrams) shouldn't require a bachelor's degree, but of course weak labor market blah blah blah.
Anyway, I've been meaning to digress: This is sort of the flip side of another other phenomenon I've been meaning to post about - how you can earn up to 24 credits in places like this by "submitting a portfolio for life credit", ie an oldster with a couple decades of experience can now pay to have that partially credentialized.
On the one hand: how depressing that now you can pay money to have your past few decades of work turned into magical college credits that acknowledge that you've continued to learn on the job for the past few decades, so that employers will acknowledge this as well. On the other hand: I can see how this must seem like an urgent band-aid solution for older workers who are trying to get a degree as quickly as possible so that they can return to the workforce or move ahead, and who have genuine skills from experience that are going underappreciated.
Cryptic Ned asks: How did you write your books? (Layout software?) I think it would be better to ask you [Heebie] because kids' books aren't just a collection of paragraphs, they're laid out complicatedly.
And more importantly: Does it make sense to write the kind of book I want to write? It would be mostly a collection of interesting public-domain material with my introductions and notes. If something is a suitable age, I can do what I want with it, right? Even if the journal still exists and claims that you have to pay for stuff from 1870 just like it was from 2010?
Heebie's take: My mom illustrates our books, and then actually prints out text, tapes it in different spots until she finds where she likes it, and then (I believe) uses photoshop to manually insert text around her illustration. (However, it's largely been moot, because publishers do whatever the hell they like with the layout.) But IIRC, other people here have had useful answers for software for the first question. (I think Text swore by some platform at some point - he's probably available over email, since it's been awhile since he commented.)
For your second question: I think it depends what your goals are for, with your book. If you consider self-publishing to be a perfectly reasonable outcome, then by all means I think you should write the book. Long tail of the internet, etc. (I'm curious about the topic.) Bottom line: is your own time worth the gratification of having this compiled in one place and having it accessible by other people? Are you going to enjoy the process enough to stick with it, or will it become a horrible albatross around your neck?
However, if you've got your heart set on a traditional publisher (like my mom does), then it's a rather brutal, demoralizing process, and no, go start a PhD in art history instead. I'm guessing, since the topic seems obscure, that you're not in this category.
Finally, is a book clearly the best format? Or would a website, with all its inter-linkiness and flexibility, offer some advantages?
I've been seeing this stat that about 6% of women are responsible for most false accusations of rape. They're sociopaths. In addition to fostering a culture of intervention among men and women, shouldn't we publicly make the case that men shouldn't get drunk around shrews they don't trust? Can we at least tell them that privately? Criminals, lying whores, tornadoes, and earthquakes exist: prudence isn't a betrayal of MRA.
Trigger warning: this post might be indistinguishable from trolling.
I've been seeing this stat that about 6% of men are responsible for most sexual assaults. If this is true, shouldn't it cause a major revision to how we deal with the problem of sexual assault on campus? I'm inclined to assume that it's not the case that those 6% just haven't seen they flyers or read the pamphlets or gotten the message. They're sociopaths. In addition to fostering a culture of intervention among men and women, if we're not going to allow people to publicly make the case that women shouldn't get shitfaced around guys they don't trust (and I understand why--inevitably that becomes the basis for victim-blaming) can we at least tell them that privately? Criminals, rapists, tornadoes, and earthquakes exist: prudence isn't a betrayal of feminism.
I was listening to an interview with Nate Jackson last night, who turns out to be a former pro-football player who wrote a book. The interview turned towards CTE, and I was struck by the similarities to the mental problems that veterans have coming home from war.
Obviously these are not super similar situations, but I was specifically thinking about the sheer lack of understanding that the young kid has about what it might be like to struggle with serious brain and emotional injuries for years and years.
On a different note, I am beside myself with excitement that they're putting wallpaper in today.