A lower sugar spike helps but in the end that sugar is still there. The so called healthy "slow release" carbs still release in the end. If the body has too much sugar available it doesn't get round to burning fat. I mean that's the argument, but you'd have to read up to see if it makes sense.
The slow release makes all the difference. The huge insulin spike that triggers the storage of ALL fat only happens when the glucose hits all at once. Slow release insulin means that both glucose and fat can be burned simultaneously as your body continues to digest the food and introduce more glucose in to your bloodstream.
So either something radically changed in our bodies in the last 12000 years, or we are eating an unnatural amount of grains.
Or the grains changed recently. White rice and white flower are much, much more recent inventions. Add to that things like the sugar water (soda, juice, and even beer) that we drink at nearly every meal and you can see how much our much our diets have changed in just the past 100 years.
It sounds like your hinting at the Paleo diet with all this. That diet does work but that's because it's a much more strict version of a low GI diet. I'm not going to argue that low GI is just as good as Paleo but it's certainly much simpler to implement and has most of the same benefits.
For anyone who is interested in the details of why low GI diets work and how we are where we are today I recommend the book Good Calories, Bad Calories
The human brain can only process so much information at once.
The radio/address thing is likely more about the lyrics. The human brain can only process one stream of language at a time. Compare reading a book when listening to music with lyrics vs music with out lyrics.
it is time to stop trying to drag down those that are actually creating jobs and employing people and start trying to pull everyone else up so that they can have those same successes.
Agreed. However we need to address the rich AND the poor who are abusing the system in order to do that. That is what OWS was truly about for those of us who do have a clue. Those with money who abuse their power are a far larger force for damage then the 4% who "rather sit in their trailer and collect money from the government than work". Minimum wage jobs like working at Walmart are my go to example for this. They pay people so low that huge groups of people have to go on welfare in order to survive. Quite honestly if I looked around and saw that as my only job option you bet I would rather sit around then work. What would be the point?
California taxpayers are spending $86 million a year providing healthcare and other public assistance to the state’s 44,000 Wal-Mart employees, according to a new study by UC Berkeley’s Institute for Industrial Relations.
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/corporate-subsidy-watch/hidden-taxpayer-costs This link contains over 20 states that have companies like Walmart as the biggest contributer to "lower-income workers are turning to taxpayer-funded healthcare programs such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)."
And if you think "that's just the cost of low prices!" well
By Ed Smith's math, the CEO of Walmart earns more in an hour than his employees will earn in a year.
So I seriously think they can afford to pay much better or at least give decent benefits.
Why does google express the desire that I "should not" be hosting "any kind of server"? I mean, what reason, that lines up credibly in any way with there prior sentiments about net neutrality, internet entrepeneurship, or anything, could possibly justify that they feel that every user "should not host a server of any kind?" What kind of vision is that for the current and future internet they hope to deliver?
You know what would suck? If people started hosting web sites from their home that were down half of the time. That would be worse for the internet then if an ISP just said "Please go else where to host a server".
This is a new service. Google has no idea what problems they are going to run in to and are taking it slow. How stupid would they have sounded if they came out and said "Hey guys we are starting a new ISP division. Who wants to sign up their mission critical servers to be hosted by us?". It's fine for the internet if a home goes down but not if a business's servers go down. That is why that phrase is perfectly reasonable. You CAN host servers out of your home but you SHOULD not since Google can't guarantee any reasonable QOS yet.
Can you really call yourself an ISP if you disallow such basic functionality as a generic tcp/ip service provided on a port on your computer?
Here is something in my Optimum Online terms of service
Users may not run any type of server on the system. This includes but is not limited to FTP, IRC, SMTP, POP, HTTP, SOCKS, SQUID, DNS or any multi-user forums
So yes they can. At lest Google did not say I can't they only said I should not. If you want server support you need to get a business class internet connection, Google is not selling that yet.
This is key. The human brain only has one language processing section. Music with lyrics will cause it to compute words rather then letting you read or write what ever you are working on. The article points this out but basically ignores how well people can concentrate when listening to music with-out lyrics. Have any studies actually looked at non-lyric music working?
Why are there 60 minutes per hour? Wouldn't it be better to have 100?
60/2 = 30
60/3 = 20
60/4 = 15
60/5 = 12
60/6 = 10
"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown