Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:This works 100% (Score 1) 251

by sribe (#49793961) Attached to: How a Scientist Fooled Millions With Bizarre Chocolate Diet Claims

Unless the Cushing's Syndrome somehow implies termodynamics laws' violation, which I strongly doubt, I don't think you can increase *weight* simply by metabolizing tissues into fat.

Yeah, OK, you're right about that--especially your point about water content of fat. It's been a long time since I dealt with this with a relative, and my recollection is somewhat hazy of the explanation for why it can be simply impossible for Cushing's patients to avoid weight gain, much less lose weight.

And yes, I know Cushing's Syndrome usually curses with obesity, but you can bet it is not because of what you say but because the way you eat more (specially when it curses with depression) and how you transform what you eat mainly into fat at the expense of other tissues, which in turn makes you move less, which in turn makes your intake even more -relatively speaking, excessive.

Cushing's patients can gain weight even on strict calorie-limited diets and with vigorous exercise. It's because of the changes in the way food is metabolized, increased metabolism specifically of carbohydrates & fats. In order to actually lose weight, some people with that disease would have to reduce caloric intake to a level that would lead to death pretty quickly from heart failure. (Now, to be clear, I am not talking about the mildest cases, thus "can gain weight..." not "will gain weight...", "some people..." not "all people...".)

Let me put it to you this way: when said relative described her attempts at calorie reduction and increased exercise to the specialist, his response was "Yes, that's why you gained 100 lbs last year instead of 200".

The vast majority of overweight people simply need to eat less and exercise more. That's true, but unfortunately it has been simplified into such dogma that, literally, someone who has weighed 120lbs an entire adult life, and suddenly balloons to nearly 200 in a few months without diet or activity changes, can go to the doctor and be told to see a dietician and and get a personal trainer, despite having multiple other symptoms besides weight gain, and that's dangerous. Dangerous, and happens again and again--very common at the Mayo Clinic for Cushing's patients to show up with photos to prove what they looked like a year ago because they've been blown off by so many.

Average time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis: 3 years. In a disease that has a 50% mortality rate (mostly heart failure) in 5 years. While 3 < 5, that's a delay that is scary :-(

Comment: Re:This works 100% (Score 1) 251

by sribe (#49792339) Attached to: How a Scientist Fooled Millions With Bizarre Chocolate Diet Claims

Many of my friends will not agree, but I wonder how one can gain weight by putting less calories in their system.

Endocrine disorder which totally mucks up metabolism, causing your body to metabolize muscle (including your heart, oh joy) and connective tissue, in order to create huge mounds of fat which are mostly water. It's called "Cushing's Syndrome".

It is also EXTREMELY RARE, so yeah, in the vast majority of cases eating less and moving your ass more works just fine ;-)

Comment: Re:Not buying it, Copper wire is exspensive (V*A=W (Score 1) 554

by sribe (#49791733) Attached to: How Tesla Batteries Will Force Home Wiring To Go Low Voltage

I was taught that current kills not Voltage. A static shock has huge tension but non-existent current whereas a toaster in the bathtub has (relatively) low voltage and high current.

True.

Can a sparky weigh in on this for me?

Sure. The amperage coming through a 230V home outlet is still orders of magnitude higher than what's required to be lethal. The reduction by 1/2 from our 120V service has nothing to do with making it safe to stick a fork in the outlet ;-)

Comment: Re:what I found most surprising (Score 1) 620

by sribe (#49760043) Attached to: Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

"Religious Right" in the USA is a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".

Correction: "pleasure-obsessed control freaks". Marijuana has (almost) nothing to do with sex, yet these are the people who are promising, at the state level, to undo the laws passed by citizen referendums, and, at the federal level, to force those states back into compliance with federal law. (Presumably by storming DEA assaults throughout the states, since the feds have absolutely 0 ability to direct local law enforcement's day-to-day operations.)

Comment: Re:Plant? (Score 1) 382

by sribe (#49754707) Attached to: How Java Changed Programming Forever

That's going a bit far. Javascript definitely has some kludge...

Oh, I agree. Some last-second editing rephrased "at all compared to" and made it read a bit differently than I intended. JavaScript is kludgy; but it's nothing compared to the ass-backware inside-out semantic model that Node.js advocates promote ;-)

All you kiddies who discovered event-driven programming and the C10K problem last month, shut up. The real adults have solved the C2M problem, and the solution involves threads AND event-driven queues, a technique which has been well understood for about 20 freaking years now.

Comment: Re:Irresponsible. (Score 1) 120

The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey crashed 4 times during testing killing 30 crew members.

You got me; I'd totally forgotten about the V-22 Albatross ;-)

All modern planes except light GA aircraft have engines have fully computer-controlled engines, it's called FADEC...

Of course they are. I wasn't taking a cheap shot a software-controlled planes in general, I was taking a cheap shot at French software engineering--sorry I wasn't more clear about that...

Comment: Re:Irresponsible. (Score -1) 120

They WERE testing the plane. cant know about the bugs until the real world tests

And yet, somehow, in modern times, it's only Airbus whose planes crash during testing and kill crews. But I guess since we don't have a statistically meaningful sample size of computer-controlled jets doing that, it's just coincidence that they're both Airbus, right? Just pure dumb luck...

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Working...