Search Ideas

[T]he true explanation of seasons [says] that the Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun. Hence for half of each year the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun while the southern hemisphere is tilted away, and for the other half it is the other way around. Whenever the sun’s rays are falling vertically in one hemisphere (thus providing more heat per unit area of the surface) they are falling obliquely in the other (thus providing less).
[S]urfaces tilted away from radiant heat are heated less than when they are facing it, and … a spinning sphere in space points in a constant direction.

[W]hy those gods and not others? …
[W]hy is it specifically a magic seed and not any other kind of magic? Why is it a conjugal-visits contract and not some other reason for someone to repeat an action annually?

This explanation basically just says “the gods did it.” The details have no bearing on the underlying explanation.

This explanation predicts that the seasons happen at the same time everywhere. It contradicts observation: in Australia, the seasons are ‘inverted’.

Long ago, Hades, god of the underworld, kidnapped and raped Persephone, goddess of spring. Then Persephone’s mother, Demeter, goddess of the earth and agriculture, negotiated a contract for her daughter’s release, which specified that Persephone would marry Hades and eat a magic seed that would compel her to visit him once a year thereafter. Whenever Persephone was away fulfilling this obligation, Demeter became sad and would command the world to become cold and bleak so that nothing could grow.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but potatoes seem to be a good source of fiber. Very filling, also due to their high water content.

Carbonated water and diet sodas also feel filling, and they don’t even have calories. Diet sodas can help people lose weight. I like to drink Diet Coke when I’m on a cut. The caffeine gives me energy.

Sure, but those cash flows are still downstream of what consumers subjectively value though?

So the estimation of "intrinsic value" is ultimately a guess of what people will subjectively value in the future?

Yeah potatoes are a decent source of fibre, though the satiation is mostly through their high water content :)

Done as of e612125, polished as of 046438f.

Need the ability to exclude archived ideas from search results.

For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.

I don’t know if I agree with the word “vastly”. People have done Twinkie diets where they eat nothing but Twinkies (plus some supplements to get the bare minimum) while monitoring calories and they lost weight.

Still, I’ll edit my idea to say that people should get all the nutrients they need while in a deficit.

Most people are overnourished. One way to take control is to measure your daily energy expenditure and not eat above that.

Using an online calculator like https://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html, you can get a decent estimate of your daily caloric needs (aka your caloric maintenance).

Then, using https://cronometer.com/, track your food to ensure you don’t exceed your daily caloric needs.

By eating in a 500-calorie deficit, you can lose about a pound per week. Lift heavy weights a couple of times a week so the weight you lose is fat, not muscle.

Avoid a prolonged deficit. Eat high-quality foods so you get all the macro- and micronutrients you need (Cronometer will tell you). Recalculate your caloric maintenance once a month or so to make sure you don’t hit a wall.

This is a simple way to do body recomposition.

Yes, there are many factors that influence how many calories the body metabolizes. I’d add fiber content and thermic effect. But I think of them as footnotes to the CICO model, not criticisms. Taking them into account makes CICO more accurate. Cronometer takes them into account.

While following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off is incomplete.

#4212 is not meant as a complete guide but as a high-level overview.

For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.

I don’t know if I agree with the word “vastly”. People have done Twinkie diets where they eat nothing but Twinkies (plus some supplements to get the bare minimum) and they lost weight.

Still, I’ll edit my idea to say that people should get all the nutrients they need while in a deficit.

On a general note, your writing would benefit from simplification. I’ve noticed this throughout your contributions on V, but here are some examples from this specific idea:

“will trigger a suppression of” -> ‘suppresses’
“causes a lowering of” -> ‘lowers’
“An alternative is to improve” -> ‘Instead, improve’
“is kept the same” -> ‘stays the same’
“This would be preferred by the body” -> ‘The body would prefer this’
“utilised” -> ‘used’

I like to follow George Orwell’s writing advice (especially 2, 4, and 5):

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive [voice] where you can use the active [voice].
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

A chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.

#4212 doesn’t advocate a chronic deficit. Still, I’ll edit it to say that people shouldn’t be in prolonged deficits.

The value of gold is anchored, see #4155. The dollar has no such anchor.

While following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off is incomplete.

'Calories in vs calories out' dieting is based on the idea that each person has a fixed rate of at which they burn calories at rest, proportional to their bodyweight. This fails to account for the fact that ‘calories out’ depends entirely on the metabolic state of the individual, which is highly dependent on the quality of their nutrition.

Some diets lack certain key nutrients required for efficient metabolism, thereby inhibiting the body’s ability to utilise calories. Some diets also contain metabolic toxins that diminish the body’s ability to utilise calories.

For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.

While following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off has been debunked.

'Calories in vs calories out' dieting is based on the idea that each person has a fixed rate of at which they burn calories at rest, proportional to their bodyweight. This fails to account for the fact that ‘calories out’ depends entirely on the metabolic state of the individual, which is highly dependent on the quality of their nutrition.

Some diets lack certain key nutrients required for efficient metabolism, thereby inhibiting the body’s ability to utilise calories. Some diets also contain metabolic toxins that diminish the body’s ability to utilise calories.

For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have vastly different weight gain/loss outcomes.

A chronic calorie deficit will trigger a suppression of the active thyroid hormone T3. Lowering T3 causes a lowering of the metabolic rate, which lowers the rate of caloric burn at rest.

For this reason, CICO dieting often hits a wall when the body adjusts to the new low calorie lifestyle.

An alternative is to improve the quality of the foods, such that the metabolic rate increases while caloric intake is kept the same (or even increased too, by a lesser amount). This would be preferred by the body as it is a more complete solution: all nutrient requirements are being met and energy is being produced and utilised in abundance.

I think it is much more useful to think of the body as a dynamic energy-processing system, rather than a ledger of calories.

While following this kind of protocol does help some people lose weight, the model it is based off has been debunked.

'Calories in vs calories out' dieting is based on the idea that each person has a fixed rate of at which they burn calories at rest, proportional to their bodyweight. This fails to account for the fact that ‘calories out’ depends entirely on the metabolic state of the individual, which is highly dependent on the quality of their nutrition.

Some diets lack certain key nutrients required for efficient metabolism, thereby inhibiting the body’s ability to utilise calories. Some diets also contain metabolic toxins that diminish the body’s ability to utilise calories.

For these reasons, diets that are equal in calories but that vary in nutritional content can have different weight gain/loss outcomes.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but potatoes seem to be a good source of fiber. Very filling.

Carbonated water and diet sodas also feel filling, and they don’t even have calories. Diet sodas can help people lose weight. I like to drink Diet Coke when I’m on a cut. The caffeine gives me energy.

If the business is cash-flowing it doesn’t matter if other people in the market don’t bid it up. The business can buy back shares or distribute dividends to enrich shareholders.

Obviously this assumes you’ve invested in a business with competent management.

Let’s say you wanted to know if your house was gaining or losing value over time. You can do a calculation using historical gold price records to see how many gold ounces the house cost you (opportunity cost), and how many gold ounces the house is worth now.

This doesn’t mean that if you eventually go to sell it you will only accept gold ounces. You might be happy with dollars because you plan to use the dollars to buy another house.

The point is that you are thinking about the value of things in units of gold, rather than units of dollars.

The easiest lever to pull when trying to lose weight is satiation. That can be done artificially through GLP1-agonists, but in the case of nutrition, that's best accomplished by an increased protein and fibre intake.