Off-topic chat thread

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by SteveMak

I'm about 175 lbs @ 6'2". My all-time high was 215 lbs. I had a bulging gut, double chin, a number of health issues, etc.

Virtually everything we've been taught since the 1970s in North America with respect to health, obesity, and diet, is wrong. The whole USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Food Pyramid, the calorie-counting, eat less / exercise more, low-fat, low-cholesterol... it's all wrong. Even its creator, Ancel Keys ("Keys" as in the "K" in "K-Rations"), wrote in his memoirs that his "bad fat" hypothesis was completely wrong, as was the Food Pyramid and the high-glycemic (high-carbohydrate) diet it advocates. "The Creator" admits he messed up, BAD, and yet the beliefs live on.

When I speak about this, most people disbelieve. Their thought system is thoroughly locked into what they've been taught, and that's The Food Pyramid (for the most part), calories (total fiction), etc.

Being fat (excess body fat) is not the problem. It's a symptom of the problem, as are a host of other ailments that the media reports are "related" to being over-fat, such as diabetes, alzheimer's (and other forms of dementia), heart disease and stroke, acid reflux, various cancers, Metabolic Syndrome, Syndrome X, Syndrome Y, etc. All symptoms of the root case: bad diet. More specifically, the culprit is the "North American" diet, which has a dangerously high glycemic impact, is full of cellular inflammatories, and it devastates the microbiome... the three factors that are essential to good health.

FWIW:

• I lost 40 lbs of fat (not just "weight"). That's over 18% of my total weight!
• I'm keeping fat off effortlessly by managing my diet (no gym membership here). Not how much I eat (the 100% wrong calorie model), but what I eat.
• My health has taken a remarkable turn-around (my doctor is amazed, and considers me "the picture of health")
• I'm writing a book that includes this information (I'm about 85% done). No, it's not a diet book. It's about finding lasting happiness, and a person's health, body image, and self-image often plays a dominant role in how they perceive themselves and the world around them, and how they feel about it (i.e., not so happy).
• What I say typically falls on "deaf ears," so I take no offense taken when others have their contradictory beliefs and tell me I'm full of B.S.

-Steve

Amen, Steve.

Never heard Ancel Keys FINALLY confessed to his scientific fraud that was adopted around the world. Would like to see that, if you have the citation handy.

Before the medical community wakes up to Key's fraud, that evil ******* has likely cause families worldwide more misery and end up killing more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao COMBINED. Not to mention the research $$$ siphoned off from cancer research to solve/fight diabetes and obesity.

[SteveMak]

ChewChewTrain: To address a number of your statements...

_____
re Evil Ancel -- Keys was well-intentioned. His motives were pure, in that he really believed he was right, and that he was using his influence to help Mankind. He truly, deeply believed that, with unwavering conviction, and without malicious intent. That's what motivated him to "clean up" (AKA "fudge" and "cherry pick") data that supported his beliefs, and to dismiss the data that didn't as being "obviously wrong or tainted."

There are many examples of similarly well-intentioned people who believe, with absolute conviction, that they are factually correct. Examples include:

• The belief that Blacks and Hispanics are predisposed to criminal behavior.
• The belief that abortion is murder, and should never be allowed.
• The belief that the world is 6,000 years old, and was spoken into existence by a deity.
• The belief that science is always right, and the universe came into existence with The Big Bang. For those who are scratching their heads at this statement: Most folks don't know that the term "Big Bang" was coined by a scientist who opposed the theory and used the phrase as a pejorative, to ridicule the theory. The Big Bang theory was never universally adopted in the scientific community, though is it one of the more popular ones. Equally plausible theories include: Multiverse theory, Membrane Theory, and Quantum Theory, which shows (mathematically) that it's possible the universe spontaneously came into existence (though in a much more primitive state), much like quantum particles do, simply manifesting out of nothing rather than transforming between energy and matter and requiring a singularity like The Big Bang does.

_____

re Citations and Quotes -- A mountain of research supports what I'm about to say: Humans rarely change their mind based on the available facts. If this were not so, then humans would almost always be right, and there would be very little disagreement about "what is" and its nature. Each human has a unique thought system (beliefs, opinions, assumptions, expectations, and understandings). This thought system determines what one can perceive -- it filters out that which is too alien. It places its own meaning on what it does perceive (i.e., it interprets it, and determines what "it means"). We see this when people holding opposing views point to the same data to support their beliefs. A thought system readily discards information that does not support its internal works, and readily embraces information that it interprets does support itself (AKA "Confirmation bias" and similar phenomenon). This is well known, and well documented.

That's why I typically walk away from arguments. The arguer is not seeking information. They're not challenging their assumptions and beliefs. They're not seeking contrary truths. They're asserting why they're right, and even more so, they do so because it's important for them to be seen as correct, and for others to embrace their beliefs. In other words, humans argue to influence and to get their way; not to learn. Again, this is well known, well documented, well understood.

I mention this because in the past, I used to busy myself providing proof to others, trying to "help others see the errors of their ways", etc. Some of the valuable lessons I have learned in life:

• I've been wrong before. A lot. My "wisdom" today is in knowing this, and in embracing the understanding that I am not The Holder of Truth. So I will not assert "I am right". I'll only share what I believe, and let you decide what's right (for you).
• People with beliefs that overlap mine will instantly "see" that I'm "telling the truth." The fact is that they're just hearing something similar to what they already believe, coming from someone else's mouth.
• Some people are already seeking. What I tell them often does not come as a shock. They'll conduct their own research, as much as they see fit, and they'll arrive at their own conclusions.
• There are those with beliefs that are so contrary, that no matter what "proof" I present, they'll know it's "wrong", and that it merits no investment on their part to dig into the matter and see if there's anything there for them. People and organizations I mention will be dismissed as crackpots or with sinister motives. Data I present will be dismissed as wrong. Web links and articles I present will be dismissed as biased, being driven by an evil agenda, or "fake news." The truth is that the observer's thought system is a very effective "gatekeeper" and does an outstanding job at pushing away contrary beliefs.
• The Truth is not hidden. The Truth is not "beyond our reach", beyond our technology allowing us to perceive it. It's there. We just don't believe it. Many decades before Copernicus turned his telescope skyward and declared that the Earth is not the center of the universe, ancient Greeks hypothesized that Earth travels around the sun, and that the sun in merely an up-close star. The ancient "BC" world demonstrated mathematically that the Earth was round, centuries before this belief was widely adopted. Around 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that E=MC^2, many decades before we had the machines to prove his theories were sound. The LHC, or Large Hadron Collider, just recently proved that we can take massive amounts of electrical energy and create matter, particles of stuff, from that. The Truth -- or more accurately stated, Truths -- exist... it's just that we humans are so reluctant to embrace them because we have our own "truths", to which we cling tenaciously... until we don't anymore:-)

As a result, I'll offer up what I believe and walk away, knowing that most won't care, some will declare it utter B.S., some will "recognize" it as "The Truth," and some, those very special few who are on the cusp, will be inspired enough to look deeper of their own accord, and will have their "Ah-ha Moment," not because of me, but because they were already on their journey and I just played a small part in their travels.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by SteveMak

ChewChewTrain: To address a number of your statements...

_____
re Evil Ancel -- Keys was well-intentioned. His motives were pure, in that he really believed he was right, and that he was using his influence to help Mankind. He truly, deeply believed that, with unwavering conviction, and without malicious intent. That's what motivated him to "clean up" (AKA "fudge" and "cherry pick") data that supported his beliefs, and to dismiss the data that didn't as being "obviously wrong or tainted."

There are many examples of similarly well-intentioned people who believe, with absolute conviction, that they are factually correct. Examples include:

• The belief that Blacks and Hispanics are predisposed to criminal behavior.
• The belief that abortion is murder, and should never be allowed.
• The belief that the world is 6,000 years old, and was spoken into existence by a deity.
• The belief that science is always right, and the universe came into existence with The Big Bang. For those who are scratching their heads at this statement: Most folks don't know that the term "Big Bang" was coined by a scientist who opposed the theory and used the phrase as a pejorative, to ridicule the theory. The Big Bang theory was never universally adopted in the scientific community, though is it one of the more popular ones. Equally plausible theories include: Multiverse theory, Membrane Theory, and Quantum Theory, which shows (mathematically) that it's possible the universe spontaneously came into existence (though in a much more primitive state), much like quantum particles do, simply manifesting out of nothing rather than transforming between energy and matter and requiring a singularity like The Big Bang does.

_____

re Citations and Quotes -- A mountain of research supports what I'm about to say: Humans rarely change their mind based on the available facts. If this were not so, then humans would almost always be right, and there would be very little disagreement about "what is" and its nature. Each human has a unique thought system (beliefs, opinions, assumptions, expectations, and understandings). This thought system determines what one can perceive -- it filters out that which is too alien. It places its own meaning on what it does perceive (i.e., it interprets it, and determines what "it means"). We see this when people holding opposing views point to the same data to support their beliefs. A thought system readily discards information that does not support its internal works, and readily embraces information that it interprets does support itself (AKA "Confirmation bias" and similar phenomenon). This is well known, and well documented.

That's why I typically walk away from arguments. The arguer is not seeking information. They're not challenging their assumptions and beliefs. They're not seeking contrary truths. They're asserting why they're right, and even more so, they do so because it's important for them to be seen as correct, and for others to embrace their beliefs. In other words, humans argue to influence and to get their way; not to learn. Again, this is well known, well documented, well understood.

I mention this because in the past, I used to busy myself providing proof to others, trying to "help others see the errors of their ways", etc. Some of the valuable lessons I have learned in life:

• I've been wrong before. A lot. My "wisdom" today is in knowing this, and in embracing the understanding that I am not The Holder of Truth. So I will not assert "I am right". I'll only share what I believe, and let you decide what's right (for you).
• People with beliefs that overlap mine will instantly "see" that I'm "telling the truth." The fact is that they're just hearing something similar to what they already believe, coming from someone else's mouth.
• Some people are already seeking. What I tell them often does not come as a shock. They'll conduct their own research, as much as they see fit, and they'll arrive at their own conclusions.
• There are those with beliefs that are so contrary, that no matter what "proof" I present, they'll know it's "wrong", and that it merits no investment on their part to dig into the matter and see if there's anything there for them. People and organizations I mention will be dismissed as crackpots or with sinister motives. Data I present will be dismissed as wrong. Web links and articles I present will be dismissed as biased, being driven by an evil agenda, or "fake news." The truth is that the observer's thought system is a very effective "gatekeeper" and does an outstanding job at pushing away contrary beliefs.
• The Truth is not hidden. The Truth is not "beyond our reach", beyond our technology allowing us to perceive it. It's there. We just don't believe it. Many decades before Copernicus turned his telescope skyward and declared that the Earth is not the center of the universe, ancient Greeks hypothesized that Earth travels around the sun, and that the sun in merely an up-close star. The ancient "BC" world demonstrated mathematically that the Earth was round, centuries before this belief was widely adopted. Around 1905, Albert Einstein proposed that E=MC^2, many decades before we had the machines to prove his theories were sound. The LHC, or Large Hadron Collider, just recently proved that we can take massive amounts of electrical energy and create matter, particles of stuff, from that. The Truth -- or more accurately stated, Truths -- exist... it's just that we humans are so reluctant to embrace them because we have our own "truths", to which we cling tenaciously... until we don't anymore:-)

As a result, I'll offer up what I believe and walk away, knowing that most won't care, some will declare it utter B.S., some will "recognize" it as "The Truth," and some, those very special few who are on the cusp, will be inspired enough to look deeper of their own accord, and will have their "Ah-ha Moment," not because of me, but because they were already on their journey and I just played a small part in their travels.

I REJECT that Ancel Keys was "well intentioned". A "well intentioned", TRUE scientist does NOT inject his personal bias with research findings. Ancel Keys is one of the worse human beings to have walked the earth for all the costs and misery that he caused.

Many that had met and worked with Ancel Keys agree that Keys was egotistical (defending his fraud science) and bullied others that did NOT agree.

Keys got onto the Heart Association Board of Directors, I recall, and THAT became his bully platform. Any researcher that disagreed was an outcast and did not get any research grants to prove Keys wrong.

Ancel Key's actions are totally indefensible.

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by ChewChewTrain

I REJECT that Ancel Keys was "well intentioned". Many that had met and worked with Ancel Keys have agreed that Keys was egotistical (defending his fraud science) and bullied others that did NOT agree. He got onto the Heart Association Board of Directors, I recall, and THAT became his bully platform. Any researcher that disagreed was an outcast and did not get any research grants to prove Keys wrong. Ancel Key's actions are totally indefensible.

I do not contest any of this! So look at his motives: Evil conspiracy, perhaps to get rich, or to dominate somehow? Nope. He was indeed self-righteous, ego-centric, and a bully, but he did this because he truly believed he was right, and that by doing this, he would he helping humanity.

Don't make the mistake in (mis)understanding that being well-intentioned means being kind, gentle, loving, embracing self-determination for all, etc. It just means lack of malicious intent; having only positive intentions. That does not make it "excusable" or "okay."

[ChewChewTrain]

Steve, your other Key defenses are off point.

If Keys had been honest from the start, you wouldn't have to bring up those other defenses for his behavior.

[SteveMak]

Originally Posted by ChewChewTrain

Steve, your other Key defenses are off point. If Keys had been honest from the start, you wouldn't have to bring up those other defenses for his behavior.

You're missing the point. I am NOT defending or excusing Keys. I am NOT saying he was right, or justified in his actions. I merely wish to differentiate between "good intentions" and other things. And you can't see that differentiation.

You cannot see how someone can mean no harm, believe they're doing good for others (i.e., "good intentions"), and yet go about it using unkind, dishonest tactics, and in the end, cause great harm, even though they had not intended to (i.e., "good intentions").

When you're hell-bent on vilification, blame, and contempt, it's inconceivable that the target of these things can be seen as a human who was trying to do good, but messed up, big-time.

[ChewChewTrain]

Originally Posted by SteveMak

You're missing the point. I am NOT defending or excusing Keys. I am NOT saying he was right, or justified in his actions. I merely wish to differentiate between "good intentions" and other things. And you can't see that differentiation.

You cannot see how someone can mean no harm, believe they're doing good for others (i.e., "good intentions"), and yet go about it using unkind, dishonest tactics, and in the end, cause great harm, even though they had not intended to (i.e., "good intentions").

When you're hell-bent on vilification, blame, and contempt, it's inconceivable that the target of these things can be seen as a human who was trying to do good, but messed up, big-time.

(shrug) I've said all I could on the matter. You're entitled to your interpretation. I appreciate the discussion, Steve. Thanks!

[cuts_off_prius]

Has anyone seen a Kia Niro in person? I saw my first one driving today and it looked like a small hatch, smaller than I thought. Looked pretty neat.

Article talks about this: QOTD: What is a Crossover?

[Draigflag]

Originally Posted by cuts_off_prius

Has anyone seen a Kia Niro in person? I saw my first one driving today and it looked like a small hatch, smaller than I thought. Looked pretty neat.

Article talks about this: QOTD: What is a Crossover?

Yes I caught a glimpse when I passed one, thought it was a Soul at first, similar square shape at the front, but more squat. There is a plug in Hybrid coming soon, and possibly a full EV version as it's loosely based on sister brands Hyundai Ioniq.

[cuts_off_prius]

Well this impressed me, for being a gas guzzler. I filled up a new tank, reset, got on a local congested road (avg mpg was in the teens around here), then merged onto the freeway to drive almost 30 miles just to see what I would get for highway alone. Traveling at 75 mph most of the time and sometimes a medium distance behind cars. I get pretty much the same readout on my mpg (vacuum) gauge at 55 mph and 75 mph. Peak torque is at 2750 rpm, which is about 75 mph. I read on the forums that 70-75 mph is a sweet spot for these cars in terms of efficiency and speed. Range was showing 447 miles LOL. Can't wait to go on a road trip in this.



What do you guys typically get for highway alone?

Relevant topic of interest: Steady State Speed vs Fuel Economy results
http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/in...threads/49683/