I didn't really make any such claim - I just wanted to share the personal observation that after stopping to consume so much sugar, I actually stopped liking it. I think a very large part of learning to eat better is learning to like better food. Along the same lines, I used to think that I couln't feel satisfied without eating a large portion of meat every day; now I don't eat meat very often - it just doesn't taste as good any more. It started with me exploring things like bean curries (thus making a strong contribution to global warming) because I felt bored with the usual stuff, and I sort of got hooked.

I think the main take away from this is that we can learn to genuinely like new foods - all kinds of new foods. And as we do so, we can unlearn our preference for things that are bad for our health. I don't think I am particularly healthy - I certainly don't feel like I am trying to be healthy - however, I am convinced I can steadily improve my habits, not by restricting myself, but by enjoying new things. Eating moderately doesn't enter into it either, but I think, when I want to exercise, it just doesn't work if I eat large meals, so I have got used to less, I suppose.

PS: You asked for an age reference - I'm 56.

What kind of diet did they start from? If the participants were typical Americans, it was probably something that was very heavy in sugar and other refined carbohydrates; more so that in fat, if I'm not mistaken, so cutting down on carbohydrates is no doubt the most important improvement to the diet one could make. Cutting back on fat would probably be the next, big step.

It is sometimes hard to remember just how extreme the typical Western diet is; it is perhaps particularly visible to me, because I have completely stopped drinking sweet drinks (including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks). Now I find I can't get through a whole glass of Coke - it's just too much, but only a few years ago I could drink whole liters of the crap.

As others have remarked, there is no need to follow any special diet, just stop eating and drinking crap. Of course, with the selection available, that in itself is actually not easy.

So, in a word: a low fad diet?

What nonsense is this? This is clearly part of a hash-tag: '# ...'

Just like the financial crisis was not caused by corrupt bankers being given far too much freedom, but instead by 'too-much-regulation', as the mantra goes? I really would have hoped that the banking crisis at least would have put an end to the anti-regulation ideology.

It really is quite simple: the sort of freedom that means nothing more than 'anti-regulation', favours the strong, ruthless and un-conscientious at the cost of everybody else, particularly the most vulnerable. This is not just speculation - we have seen it over and over throughout history in all societies; it leads to massively corrupt gangster-rule. Much like what you have seen in, eg. Nigeria. Things like freedom and democracy only work if everybody involved is willing to live by the agreed rules, and voluntarily restrict their own freedom to some extent.

Even the vikings - those hariy, brutish barbarians - knew this; to quote from Codex Holmiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Holmiensis):

I'm not sure what your point it, but as far as I know ALL scientists are skeptics; that's why they keep probing the edges of their chosen discipline all the time, in order to improve their theories.

What real scientists are not is closed-minded deniers of any and all facts they don't like, like in 'climate-skeptic' or 'evolution-skeptic', and I suspect you are trying to imply that Feynman is a 'skeptic' like that. Knowing his work, I doubt it.

- so, ho any parent do you have? I ask out of interest ... ;-)

I looked him upo in Wikipedia and ironically, he is in fact quite thin and has a big, round head...

I can think of three technologies I still can't let go of:

1. Fire. It's easy and convenient, it warms me and it helps me cook food etc. Cooking helps us dramatically increase the amount of things we can actually eat, which would otherwise be inedible to us.

2. The hammer. Not just the stick with a lump of iron on; in the form of a stone to open nuts with, it works like a replaceable, external 'tooth' that can be applied with great force, and which allows you to look at the object you work on, unlike the teeth in your jaw. When your hammer stone breaks, it may become a knife, which gives you a whole new class of powers.

3. Writing. Leaving marks on a surface was probably the first, external storage technology. Some of those early communications are still available some 3030 - 40 kyears later.

A very reasonable sentiment. Although I'm not a believer myself, it seems to me that if you truly believe in God, then you are not afraid of what science can teach you, since God created all of reality. Being a Bible (or other scripture) fundamentatlist is simply an expression of lack of faith.

How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.

Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.

Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in the middle of the Pacific, and it does in fact affect wildlife. Or how about the fact that manmade chemicals can now be measured in just about every sample of water you can come about? The truth is that mankind does in fact influence every environment on the planet; the good news is that this also means that we can choose to use our influence to make things better.

You know that, do you? How? Evidence, please.

However, it does equal correlation - and correlation means there is some sort of connection. Climatologists have come up with some very likely explanations, unlike you.

That one is brought forth all the time, but it is a nonsense argument. The only thing it proves is that climate change can be caused by other things than human activity; nobody has ever denied that, and in fact, for many years the preferred theory was that we didn't affect climate, but we have had to abandon that idea, because the observable facts speak against it.

As you already knew, nobody was going to 'censor' your opinions. In fact, you have been modded up - strange as it seems. But you just had to try to milk the 'freedom of speech' card for what it was worth, didn't you? You should be ashamed.

I don't remember how many times I have come across the idea that evolution has somehow stopped dead in its tracks for humanity; and here we see it again. It is perhaps an easy mistake to make - after all, we haven't seen much, obvious change in our species with our own eyes, and we also like to think of ourselves at the epitome of evolution, so how could we possibly become better?

The truth of the matter is that our species changes all the time, and we are very complex creatures. One part of what a human is, has only really been recognised recently: the community of micro-organisms that live in our bodies, which interacts with and even modifies us, affecting our moods and influencing our metabolisms etc. This community of micro-organisms changes very rapidly with diet, and it has a huge influence on what is the optimal diet, which is lucky, because it helps us deal with new kinds of food. We might not be able to live on the kind of crap we eat in the West if not for that.

So, the more intelligent question to ask ourselves is, what kind microbes would it be best to encourage to live in our guts, and what kind of food should we eat to do that?

Depends on the toaster, wouldn't you agree? I have had toasters that made me want to kill whoever sold it to me.

I think, if we take away the hype and the misunderstandins on the part of the article, that what we have here is an interesting observation that does support the theory that brain-growth may be one of the factors determining when we become adults. I don't think it is true, though; it seems to me that the biggest evolutionary advantage we have is, in fact, the prolonged period of brain development and plasticity and the evolution of the family unit that supports a long childhood; this, incidentally, includes the fact that we, as the only species I know of, also live long after reproduction. Having grand-parents who can pass their experience on to the youngest, seems like a huge advantage to me.

You're all flaming enthusiasm, aren't you? You mention compatibility problems as the main reason why we should expect this to fail - but, as someone who has worked with cross platform development, I know that this is only a small problem. It is perfectly possible - easy, even - to write portable code, certainly on the back-end of an application; I have done so across all UNIXes, Linuxes, Windows, and even z/OS, VMS and MPE/iX. The only problems arise at the front-end, but with proper engineering, it is not even all that hard - just look at things like application servers and cloud: they mostly run Linux at the back-end, but you, the user, couldn't care less.

The only reason why we haven't seen companies make their applications in versions for both Windows, Linux and OSX is that somebody has put a lot of effort into stopping it from happening; I won't mention names. However, with Windows becoming obsolete (even Microsoft themselves seem to have lost the spirit), it is not unreasonable to expect that this may change, and China are well positioned to be the main driver of this, so I wouldn't write this new OS just like that.

So, what they are saying, really, is that even after a referendum they will have to use common sense and work out a deal with the Scottish government. Stranger things happen at sea.