Not only a counter shockwave and the splashing as you mention.

Active armor produces an extremely high/strong electric field. And as the explosion consists of positive charged ions (does not matter what kind of "ammunition"), those get deflected.

unlike with carbs where the body works with urgency to get them out of the bloodstream now.
That is not the problem of carbs.
The problem is that insuline (high glycemic index) also triggers fat storage in(to) fat cells.
So high carb + low fat = not necessarily a negative effect.
High carb + high fat level, dependin gon the ampunt of fat, lots of fat is stored, depending on the amount of carbs, thye are converted into fat, too (but that again depends on availbale fat acids and plenty of other circumstances)

No fat at all medium carb diets have no fat storing effects ...

I understand that keto is a new buzzword in dietry, but naming a diet by the waste product it produces is a bit wiered imho :)

I do to much sports to live on a extreme low/zero carb diet
As I have no diet problems, I see no point in it anyway ...

It is an error to assume you can eat as much fat as you want if you live on a low/zero carb diet.

The fat is not stored as quickly as if carbs are involved, however surplus fat is nevertheless stored if the body can manage it (which depends on a lot of factors, e.g. amount of fat cells)

Either you did not read the links, or you do not comprehend them.

Second link (http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods)

100% Whole Grained bread (Natural Ovens) 51 30 7
Pumpernickel bread 56 30 7
50% cracked wheat kernel bread 58 30 12
Coarse barley bread, 75-80% kernels, average 34 30 7

The three above are full / whole grain breads.
Now the "white flour breads"

Wonderà bread, average 73 30 10
Whole wheat bread, average 71 30 9

Relevant is the first number, glycemic index. It determines if it triggers a high insulin level and transport of fat into fat cells and transformation of carbs into fat.

The bottom line is that eating carbs is eating carbs whether they are whole grain or refined they still metabolize into sugars and you will bonk when eating them
That is nonsense, while I eat not much carb, I still eat carb ... e.g. beer has lots of crabs.

As long as you have no intolerance and eat healthy it bottom line does not matter what you eat.

For the average fat american (or for that matter european) however it is easier to lose weight on a low carb diet ... but that basically also implies a ZERO carb diet, in the limited sense as this is possible.

Since you seem to think you have your stuff together, how come it hasn't worked for you? Don't know what you mean. Nutrition works fine for me, and all people I taught lost weight and are now healthy :D

(Want me to explain the other links to you, too?)

Any effect of excercising beyond repairing damaged muscles and perhaps increasing muscle growth is gone 15 minutes after you stopped excercising.

No idea where you those ifiotic ideas from ...

If your body has tendencies towards 'panic shutdown' I suggest a serious health check. Probably a mental one even.

The idea that something like this even exists is ridiculous.

But you do realize that this scheme is only good enough to hold your weight, not to lose any?
And it does not take into account many modern problems like fiber splitting gut bacteria.
To lose weight you need a trick to convince your body to start burning your body fat ... calories alone don't do that trick, nor the lack their-off.

Those guys are not "excercising" they are doing 12h a day heavy work.

What is so difficult to grasp? They burn 10.000 kcal? So, how much is that per hour 'training' or 'work'? Tgey are profis, you know?

They burn 833kcal per hour.

So, mate, if you want to do burn an extra 1kcal per day, or to make it easier to calculate: ~1600kcal, you need to excercise like a Tour de France cyclist for two hours: every day

And that does not even mean you burn 1600 of yoir own fat. On top of that you are not in the mental / health / shape situation to even come close to burn that much: because you are NOT a Tour de France cyclist If YOU try to excersise as hard as you can (right now, considering your shape) you would not even manage to burn 500kcal per hour. In other words: if you would work as hard as physically possible for you 16h a day, you would perhaps burn 4000kcal, perhaps 4500 ...

The exercising does nothing for weight loss is an excuse for lazy obese people not to exercise. Quite the contrary. Posts like yours show that you have not the simplest of the math skills (doing a rough divison in your mind, or pulling out a pocket calculator) to even comprehend what nonsense you write.

Unless you are either badly overweight, or naturally a muscular heavy build and/or running incredible fast/far, you never ever will burn 1000kcal in an hour, sorry.
Perhaps 650 ... perhaps! More likely 500 or less.

I would suggest to simply forget the myth that "working out" makes you lose weight.

You as a software developer are simlly not capable to do any energy intensive work outprogram that helps younlosing weight unless you start now with triathlon or similar stuff and are satisfied that the weight loss might, or migt not, start in six to 9 months.

Sorry, the human body is much to efficient to lose weight by simly doing sports, regardless what sport and especially the modern 'gym' stuff is probably the lowest energy consuming sport anyway.

Do everything combined, by cycling to work, have 3 times a week a 90 minutes jogging or martial arts session, or swimming ... and change eating habits, then the sport has an effect. 2 times a week 45 Mins in Gym has: zero effect, absolutely zero. The body does not even start to touch your fat reserves unless you work out longer than 45 mins ... so regardless what you do: the first 45 mins have absolutely no effect on your fat/weight.

Oh my ... and oure starge is digested and pulled into the blood stream and likely already on the way to be converted into fat after how many minutes?
How does the same question look for unrefined whole grain?

Why do people who have no clue about nutrition and are likely fat themselves try to give advice to other fat people?

How much starch does a pound refined grain contain? How much starch does a pound of whole grain contain? Oh? You did not think there was a difference?

losses in transmission than the losses in a local storage system that uses batteries... You are going to loose nearly 40% on your convert to DC
How do you come to this nonsense numbers?
Grid losses are around 7%, obviously depending on your country.
Batteries including everything are between 10% and 15% ...
Why are there always idiots proclaiming idiotic numbers like 40% loss?
Transmission losses are usually under 10% and that level of loss is only really seen on peek load where the
That is complete nonsense. The loss is regardless of load, it depends on transportation distance and voltage used for that.

The rest of your post makes half sense, but you did not think over it properly, so your numbers are way off.

That is even better, as Mars has two moons!

Actually no PC/Mac ever failed completely on me.
I have one SCSI drive that makes the bus hang, so I had to remove it to boot a comluter from 1997 ... no idea if it is really broken, did not investigate.

The only thing I replaced often on one of my old
PCs was the CPU fan ... it needed like a dozen of them.

Since I switched back to Macs, 2003 or so, and I only have Laptops, there was only one incident with a 12" Mac Book Pro from like 2004/2005 where a small doughter board on top of the motherboard burned out.

An underground shop, http://www.apfelklinik.de/ fixed it by replacing the motherboard and the doughterboard ofc. for an apple and an egg ...

Also, increased CO2 has been shown to be a powerful plant growth stimulant.
Ofc it is: in a greenhouse. The natural level we have right now is not a big difference for plants.

Nice article though!

That is factual false. All deserts I know about are increasing in size.