At the risk of becoming too contrarian I offer this excelent Global Warming, errr I mean Climate Change article from the Huffington Post. These articles are in no way rare, but this is particularily well stated and unique for being published on the liberal HuffPo.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a
single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your
contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within
five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most
demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
Another addition to the long list of false statements by the Weather Alarmists?
I have resisted making any opinion on the subject of Man Made climate change for quite a long time: As someone who tries to first skin problems by measuring the falacies of each camp, I was chrnoically exhausted by the logic on both sides. So instead I have retreated behnd the belief that conservation in general is good and that it's taxing your way out of a problem is like digging yourself out of a hole. The flush of articles like this might force me to formulate a position.
Just last month, the American Heart Association and the American
College of Sports Medicine published joint guidelines for physical
activity and health. They suggested that 30 minutes of moderate
physical activity five days a week is necessary to 'promote and
maintain health'. What they didn't say, though, was that more physical
activity will lead us to lose weight. The best they could say about the
relationship between fat and exercise was this: 'It is reasonable to
assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures
would be less likely to gain weight over time compared with those who
have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis
is not particularly compelling.' In other words, despite half a century
of efforts to prove otherwise, scientists still can't say exercise will
help keep the pounds off.
I knew Taubes was going to pivot in this direction, but I didn't see this article until this morning when I was prompted to look after Corrie mentioned up a friend of the family who works out two hours a day and is still very overweight. Very.
There was a time when virtually no one believed exercise would help
a person lose weight. Until the Sixties, clinicians who treated obese
and overweight patients dismissed the notion as naive. When Russell
Wilder, an obesity and difabetes specialist at the Mayo Clinic, lectured
on obesity in 1932, he said his fat patients tended to lose more weight
with bed rest, 'while unusually strenuous physical exercise slows the
rate of loss'.
Personally, I would say that the more I work out, the more I weigh. It MAY not be true, but it's certainly more true than the opposite. There is no way working out has led to weight loss for me. Oh, it has a couple of times, but the vast majority of the time the opposite has held, to my dismay, if I don't work out, I get skinny. Not sure why, but I have my ideas.
Does this seem unfathomable to you? I confess that at times it seems too pat. How could it not after a lifetime of indoctrination? But unlike the conventional wisdom, what he says actually fits with the world I see everyday. Yeah, people SAY "I work out so I can eat whatever I want" but even if they added some residual post work-out energy expenditures to the equation, there just isn't a way to work out enough to explain away an extra burrito and a beer every day. I could tell you I drink and eat like I do but stay skinny because I work out, and most people would say "that makes sense", but it doesn't. It's patently ridiculous. I eat like a pig. I work out on average less than 2 hours a week. Not only does the calorie explanation not add up, as I said before I work out to keep weight ON. You might then retreat to the "You have a high metabolism" argument, to which Taubes and Myself would agree. But we would disagree with you as to the cause and effects at play: You might say that I am able eat so much because I have a high metabolism but I am almost completely positive now that I have I high metabolism BECAUSE I eat so much. And so well (when in fact I eat well). I eat a lot because I want to gain weight, and my body , (which has no interest in the proposition) puts me to work. Who wins , I have discovered, is a product of how many Carbohydrates I eat. (Which isn't to say that I couldn't gain weight on a low or no carb diet, just that to do so I would have to gorge myself in stark defiance and violation of good taste and appetite)
I have noted time and time again that I can dry a shirt quicker by wearing it than by putting it the dryer. It's so true, but I have no illusions: I know that if I were to drop my calorie intake by 1000 a day (which would then be more inline with the conventional wisdom that has little explanation for my litheness if they saw my diet and workout regime) the immediate and then net result would be that I don't dry shirts as fast. My body, and yours are essentially furnaces, and it is foolish to think that an extra log on the fire would have any other effect other than a brighter flame. I have thought about this a lot and believe it to be absolutely true as long as I don't eat many carbs. Why? Basically carbs control insulin, which in turn determines whether I should be a hyperactive Shirt Drying machine, or a fat containment unit. . I hate to say that it's that simple, but the evidence is that it is. Go read Good Calories Bad Calories and see for yourself. The science HAS NEVER BEEN IN QUESTION. It just got pushed aside. And when it got pushed aside, the obesity epidemic started.
This would explain the slew of recent clinical trials demonstrating
that dieters who restrict carbohydrates but not calories invariably
lose more weight than dieters who restrict calories but not necessarily
carbohydrates. Put simply, it's quite possible that the foods -
potatoes, pasta, rice, bread, pastries, sweets, fizzy drinks and beer -
that our parents always thought were fattening (back when the medical
specialists treating obesity believed that exercise made us hungry)
really are fattening. And so if we avoid these foods specifically, we
may find our weights more in line with our desires.
As for those
people who insist that exercise has been the key to their weight-loss
programmes, the one thing we'd have to wonder is whether they changed
their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the time has come
to lose weight and doesn't also decide perhaps it's time to eat fewer
sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet drinks, and maybe curtail the
kind of carb-rich snacks - the potato chips and the candy bars - that
might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin and so
their fat.
For the rest of us, it may be time to take a
scientific or biological view of our excesses rather than a biblical
one. The benefits of exercise include the joys of virtuousness. I
worked out today, therefore I can eat fattening foods to my heart's
content. But maybe the causality is reversed here, too. Maybe it's
because we eat foods that fatten us that the workout becomes a
necessity, the best we can do in the battle against our own fat tissue
I read the Kite Runner on the flight to California and it was great, thanks Muffs. Maybe not perfect. Maybe. Closest thing I have ever read is Richard Russo's Latest, but his "Nobody's Fool" is the once I should recommend more often. It may not rise as high as Empire Falls, but its a sturdier read, pulitzers be damned.
Anyhow, I have Thousand Splendid Suns for the flight back, and head it's even better than Kite Runner. So Cool.
Ok, so I said I would find a link praising Holeman's Burger, and I haven't really looked. But today I was readingthis new York Times article and thinking to myself, "Its not long before articles like this mention Greg" and then in the next paragraph they did. Cool.
I should say though, that Restaurant Eugene, across the parking lot, is every bit as good, and provided a more intimate setting (provided you can actually get a seat at their tiny bar). I should keep my mouth shut, but the fact of the matter is Holeman isn't nearly moody enough for my tastes. Oh, it's one of my favorite places on earth, no doubt, but it could be darker, and dirtier, and more somber... less people would be nice, and there could be a jukebox, for instance. Other than that it's perfect. 4 out of 5 Celebrity Chefs agree, aparantly.
Breakfastwise, Corrie and still think Highland Bakery is King. We had a heck of a mean at Rita's Blue Bird and we both like Caroll Street Cafe quite a bit, but High Bakery reigns supreme on the strength of their BELT (mayo on the side. Trust me), BreakFast Sandwich, and Bisquits. Their array of pancakes and pastrees are competitive too. I like Thumbs up Diner quite a bit too. Holemans's Brunch is too lunchy, but their coffee is rock solid, and their Bloody Mary looks awesome. Is there any place I am leaving out?
Mom just made a post Christmas Mass Screwdriver and a BBQ pork sandwhich. Cool.
Yesterday I played with the nieces for a few hours: Mario Cart, Hide and Seak, Jump on Sean, the usual.
I had more to say, perhaps about Mad Men, or the lousy Broncos, but I have forgotten.
My next project is in limbo, so instead I am Working this week from the mountains on what must be the last ISDN line up in the Blue Ridge mountains .
We found a fine meat purveyor down the road, inside Mercier Apples, which provides meat from Neyman Ranch and Buck Head. We bought chorizo from the first, and steaks from the latter. The steaks are the same served by Chops and Bones, I think. Yum.
Speaking of meat. Tom Colicchio agrees that Holeman's burger is awesome. I'll find a better link asap.
Q: What restaurants have you tried in Atlanta?
A: I enjoyed Holeman & Finch. That burger thing they do was fun. I’m planning on going to Shaun’s.
Other than that, not much new to add, so I'll default into politics.
Had, or if, Obama gets tied to this Blogo-scandal in Chicago, it will not could against the good faith I have towards his presidency. We already knew he was a community organizer from Chicago, to dock him for a little retailing would paramount to docking him for racketeering, egregious double-counting. I have not been paying attention to that scandal not his pre-presidency in general, but I get the impression that so far, my faith has not been trampled on. Perhaps it's even been rewarded.
I am afraid to check out Ed's site, for fear he has started posting about how Obama is better than Bush. I know it's coming. Someone go look for me.
And my time went so quickly I went lickety-splickly
I am done with Cincinnati.
Quibble about whether Cincinnati qualifies, everyone always does, but I like Midwestern cities. I always have.
The people have a trusting mentality I associate with other favorite cities: Minneapolis and Milwaukee springing to mind.
People's treatment of you is perfectly in sync with yours of them. There are no lags or barriers.
Though my commitment to exploration was a lot less than at other places and times in my lift, in certain spots I was starting to feel every bit as welcome as I do at my favorite places in San Francisco and Atlanta. The Parking lot attendant, staff at Paula's and Kitties, gym rats at Urban Fitness, the scrabble club and staff at the BeanHaus. Even the work day had a certain day-to-day comfort to it, once they upgraded me from fold out table to actual cubicle.
I look forward to returning Cincinnati. It sometimes sucks to be such a great consultant, that I get my work done so fast, and so completely that there are no errors that I need to go back and fix**.
Yeah, tt's tough being me. Further evidence of that: I was eating the best biscuits and gravy ever, over at Paula's the other day, and I had to endure another "we need a college football playoff" discussion from the guys at the bar next to me. This conversation is rising to "Not enough scoring in soccer" and "My Fantasy Team needs...." levels of irritating.
Alas, I have an asshole, so I have an opinion, so I have a blog, so I too will throw in my two cents: If you are going to promote a playoff as a panacea, you must address the following two points: 1. Will there still be huge arguments about which team should make the Playoff. You will have changed very little. on that front.
2. The Basketball tournament, which you supposedly "take off work to watch" is great,, but when is the last time you gave two shits about an actual mid-season game? What was that? NEVER? Why do that to a spectacular, and rich in tradition, Football Season that serves games throughout the season that mean more than most playoff games?
Sorry. I should stick to food.
For instance, There is a new restaurant a quarter-mile from my condo. The Social. Beautiful Bar+Restp+winebar combo. Starts with a nice decor which morphs off a classic southern storefront into a modern wine bar. The food similarly starts off as your everyday gastro-mediteranean*** but a strong influence from Italy's Southwestern neighbors bends each dish in unique ways. Eggplant Caviar, Saffron, clever use of olives and fava in their delicious Calamri App. (The slowdown is tired of calamari appetizers, but cannot pass-up fava beans for nothing. Social's was terrific)
**If that doesn't draw out Chip and Muffs, two yahoos from the client site whose sole purpose it seemed was to harangue and pester me over the last two weeks, nothing will.
*** A term I just made up. "Mediterranean" alone invokes images of grape leaves and such, but I can think of another word. So the prefix.
