<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Diet for nerds and computer programmers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-139818</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:14:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-139818</guid>
		<description>The conventional rule for slimming, espoused by both the NIH and Britain’s National Health Service, has the benefit of simplicity: cut 500 calories each day and lose half a kilo (about a pound) a week. Most experts, though, acknowledge that this rule is too blunt as it fails to account for shifts in the body’s metabolism as the kilos pile on. Dr Hall’s model tries to do this. It also accounts for baseline characteristics that differ from person to person. Fat and muscle, for example, respond differently to shifts in diet, so the same intake will have one effect on a podgy person and another on a brawny one. The result (which can be viewed here) is a more realistic assessment of what someone needs to do to get slim.

According to the old version, for example, abstaining from a daily 250-calorie bottle of cola would lead to the loss of 35kg over three years. Dr Hall’s model predicts an average loss of just 11kg. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.economist.com/node/21526789&quot; title=&quot;Obesity: A wide spread problem &#124; The Economist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Furthermore, it also acknowledges that a dieter’s weight will eventually reach a plateau—far more realistic than the old advice, which implied, incorrectly, that weight loss will continue steadily.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The conventional rule for slimming, espoused by both the NIH and Britain’s National Health Service, has the benefit of simplicity: cut 500 calories each day and lose half a kilo (about a pound) a week. Most experts, though, acknowledge that this rule is too blunt as it fails to account for shifts in the body’s metabolism as the kilos pile on. Dr Hall’s model tries to do this. It also accounts for baseline characteristics that differ from person to person. Fat and muscle, for example, respond differently to shifts in diet, so the same intake will have one effect on a podgy person and another on a brawny one. The result (which can be viewed here) is a more realistic assessment of what someone needs to do to get slim.</p>
<p>According to the old version, for example, abstaining from a daily 250-calorie bottle of cola would lead to the loss of 35kg over three years. Dr Hall’s model predicts an average loss of just 11kg. <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21526789" title="Obesity: A wide spread problem | The Economist" rel="nofollow">Furthermore, it also acknowledges that a dieter’s weight will eventually reach a plateau—far more realistic than the old advice, which implied, incorrectly, that weight loss will continue steadily.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-123798</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:05:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-123798</guid>
		<description>At high levels of exercise, numerous studies have found that appetite tends to closely match energy requirements. But this relationship breaks down at lower levels of exercise. If you feed someone a 200-calorie snack early in the day, for example, heavy exercisers will unconsciously adjust their appetite to eat 200 fewer calories over the rest of the day. Sedentary subjects, on the other hand, will eat just as much as they normally would have.
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exercise/fitness-research/sorry-folks-but-you-have-to-diet---and-exercise/article2055780/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At high levels of exercise, numerous studies have found that appetite tends to closely match energy requirements. But this relationship breaks down at lower levels of exercise. If you feed someone a 200-calorie snack early in the day, for example, heavy exercisers will unconsciously adjust their appetite to eat 200 fewer calories over the rest of the day. Sedentary subjects, on the other hand, will eat just as much as they normally would have.<br />
 <br />
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exercise/fitness-research/sorry-folks-but-you-have-to-diet---and-exercise/article2055780/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/fitness/exer cise/fitness-research/sorry-folks-but-you-have-to-diet&#8212; and-exercise/article2055780/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-107290</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-107290</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/alex-hutchinson/the-big-fat-question-how-do-we-actually-lose-weight/article1871400/print/&quot; title=&quot;The big fat question: How do we actually lose weight? - The Globe and Mail&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The most famous equation in nutrition is “calories in = calories out.”&lt;/a&gt; But the right-hand side of the equation is more complicated than most people realize.

If you add one 60-calorie cookie to your daily diet, simple math suggests you’ll gain weight for the rest of your life at a rate corresponding to about a pound of fat for each 3,500 calories. But, in fact, as you gain weight, your body has to spend more energy maintaining the new tissue, using up some of the excess calories. A paper published last year in JAMA calculated that the weight gain would level off at six pounds after a few years.

Unfortunately for dieters, the same mechanism works in reverse when you cut calories. Your body becomes more efficient as you lose weight, and soon stabilizes at a new level. As soon as you resume your previous intake, your weight shoots back up.

Researchers are trying to identify the subtle but insistent cues that drive how many calories we consume – and their latest results reveal just how complex these factors are.

Last year, Dr. Chaput published an analysis of data from 537 participants in the Quebec Family Study. He found that a collection of unlikely factors – short sleep duration, emotional eating patterns and low dietary calcium intake – predicted the risk of obesity better than the amount of fat in the subjects’ diets or how much vigorous exercise they did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/alex-hutchinson/the-big-fat-question-how-do-we-actually-lose-weight/article1871400/print/" title="The big fat question: How do we actually lose weight? - The Globe and Mail" rel="nofollow">The most famous equation in nutrition is “calories in = calories out.”</a> But the right-hand side of the equation is more complicated than most people realize.</p>
<p>If you add one 60-calorie cookie to your daily diet, simple math suggests you’ll gain weight for the rest of your life at a rate corresponding to about a pound of fat for each 3,500 calories. But, in fact, as you gain weight, your body has to spend more energy maintaining the new tissue, using up some of the excess calories. A paper published last year in JAMA calculated that the weight gain would level off at six pounds after a few years.</p>
<p>Unfortunately for dieters, the same mechanism works in reverse when you cut calories. Your body becomes more efficient as you lose weight, and soon stabilizes at a new level. As soon as you resume your previous intake, your weight shoots back up.</p>
<p>Researchers are trying to identify the subtle but insistent cues that drive how many calories we consume – and their latest results reveal just how complex these factors are.</p>
<p>Last year, Dr. Chaput published an analysis of data from 537 participants in the Quebec Family Study. He found that a collection of unlikely factors – short sleep duration, emotional eating patterns and low dietary calcium intake – predicted the risk of obesity better than the amount of fat in the subjects’ diets or how much vigorous exercise they did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-100615</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-100615</guid>
		<description>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.&lt;/a&gt;

The premise held up: On his &quot;convenience store diet,&quot; he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub&#039;s pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub&#039;s &quot;bad&quot; cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his &quot;good&quot; cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.</p>
<p>His premise: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2" rel="nofollow">That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most &#8212; not the nutritional value of the food.</a></p>
<p>The premise held up: On his &#8220;convenience store diet,&#8221; he shed 27 pounds in two months.</p>
<p>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub&#8217;s pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.</p>
<p>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.</p>
<p>But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.</p>
<p>Haub&#8217;s &#8220;bad&#8221; cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his &#8220;good&#8221; cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-86904</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-86904</guid>
		<description>&quot;In the 1980s Steve Ward, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, described a sure-fire dieting scheme. &quot;All that you need for my diet is graph paper, a ruler, and a pencil,&quot; Steve would explain. &quot;The horizontal axis is time, one line per day. The vertical axis is weight in lbs. You plot your current weight on the left side of the paper. You plot your desired weight on a desired date towards the right side, making sure that you&#039;ve left the correct number of lines in between (one per day). You draw a line from the current weight/date to the desired weight/date. Every morning you weigh yourself and plot the result. &lt;a href=&quot;http://philip.greenspun.com/writing/changed-by-web-and-weblog&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;If the point is below the line, you eat whatever you want all day. If the point is above the line, you eat nothing but broccoli or some other low-calorie food.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;

Steve noted that this could also be called the &quot;Bang-Bang Servo Diet&quot; but that would likely be confusing to non-engineers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang-bang_control). &quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In the 1980s Steve Ward, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT, described a sure-fire dieting scheme. &#8220;All that you need for my diet is graph paper, a ruler, and a pencil,&#8221; Steve would explain. &#8220;The horizontal axis is time, one line per day. The vertical axis is weight in lbs. You plot your current weight on the left side of the paper. You plot your desired weight on a desired date towards the right side, making sure that you&#8217;ve left the correct number of lines in between (one per day). You draw a line from the current weight/date to the desired weight/date. Every morning you weigh yourself and plot the result. <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/writing/changed-by-web-and-weblog" rel="nofollow">If the point is below the line, you eat whatever you want all day. If the point is above the line, you eat nothing but broccoli or some other low-calorie food.</a>&#8221;</p>
<p>Steve noted that this could also be called the &#8220;Bang-Bang Servo Diet&#8221; but that would likely be confusing to non-engineers (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang-bang_control" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang-bang_control</a>). &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-82893</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-82893</guid>
		<description>From The Times
October 19, 2009

&lt;a href=&quot;http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article6878496.ece&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Exercise? A fat lot of good that is for weight loss&lt;/a&gt;
In the fight against obesity, we’re urged to get off the couch. Yet new research claims that diet is what counts

In 1932, Russell Wilder, one of the leading obesity experts, lectured the American College of Physicians, saying that his patients lost more weight on bed rest than an exercise regime.

It’s one of those ha-ha moments of medical history, along with doctors prescribing cigarettes to patients to “clear the lungs”. Now we all know that exercise is the best way to lose weight, in the same way that we all know that our obesity epidemic is a result of Western sloths sitting on our ever fatter bottoms. It’s why chubby will be the new norm, with 90 per cent of today’s children predicted to be overweight or obese adults by 2050, costing UK taxpayers £50 billion. It’s why the most insistent plank of the Government’s anti-obesity drive is exercise. It’s why we look at our pudgy kids and cry “To the playing fields!”, and prescribe them ever more PE. It’s why, every new year, we sigh at our expanding muffin top and resolve to Power Plate it away. 

That exercise is the key to losing our collective weight is something that we know so deep in our cultural guts that to question it would be ridiculous.

Except that is what the most cutting-edge obesity researchers are now doing. The recent studies show that the benefits of exercise for weight loss have been overstated. This idea is shocking. It goes so far against the orthodoxy that it is not something many can accept. And certainly for governments and the food industry that places them under so much pressure, it is too much to swallow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From The Times<br />
October 19, 2009</p>
<p><a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article6878496.ece" rel="nofollow">Exercise? A fat lot of good that is for weight loss</a><br />
In the fight against obesity, we’re urged to get off the couch. Yet new research claims that diet is what counts</p>
<p>In 1932, Russell Wilder, one of the leading obesity experts, lectured the American College of Physicians, saying that his patients lost more weight on bed rest than an exercise regime.</p>
<p>It’s one of those ha-ha moments of medical history, along with doctors prescribing cigarettes to patients to “clear the lungs”. Now we all know that exercise is the best way to lose weight, in the same way that we all know that our obesity epidemic is a result of Western sloths sitting on our ever fatter bottoms. It’s why chubby will be the new norm, with 90 per cent of today’s children predicted to be overweight or obese adults by 2050, costing UK taxpayers £50 billion. It’s why the most insistent plank of the Government’s anti-obesity drive is exercise. It’s why we look at our pudgy kids and cry “To the playing fields!”, and prescribe them ever more PE. It’s why, every new year, we sigh at our expanding muffin top and resolve to Power Plate it away. </p>
<p>That exercise is the key to losing our collective weight is something that we know so deep in our cultural guts that to question it would be ridiculous.</p>
<p>Except that is what the most cutting-edge obesity researchers are now doing. The recent studies show that the benefits of exercise for weight loss have been overstated. This idea is shocking. It goes so far against the orthodoxy that it is not something many can accept. And certainly for governments and the food industry that places them under so much pressure, it is too much to swallow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79840</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79840</guid>
		<description>Walker&#039;s book explains &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/feedback.html&quot; title=&quot;Food and Feedback&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an interesting theory&lt;/a&gt; about why some people find that their weight oscillates dramatically:

&quot;Oscar has the very same feedback curve as Sam, but his is shifted a little to the right, toward eating too much. One day Sam eats slightly more than he needs, and the next day slightly less. But since feedback keeps him within the range his metabolism can adjust to, Sam&#039;s weight stays the same. When Oscar eats slightly too much, though, he&#039;s pushed immediately into the region where he packs on weight. The next day, like Sam, he may eat less but, since that&#039;s within the flat part where metabolism compensates, he keeps all the weight he packs on whenever he eats a little too much.

The shift in Oscar&#039;s feedback curve with respect to his body&#039;s need for calories acts as a ratchet; each excess runs his weight up, but equivalent shortfalls don&#039;t burn off the excess weight. Over time, Oscar begins to see the evidence of this on the scale and in how his clothes fit. Having lived with this condition all his life, Oscar knows there&#039;s only one solution: peel off the pounds. So, for the umpty-umpth time he embarks on a diet: perhaps a sure-fire plan that&#039;s worked before, or maybe the current rage all the celebrities are swearing by.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Walker&#8217;s book explains <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/feedback.html" title="Food and Feedback" rel="nofollow">an interesting theory</a> about why some people find that their weight oscillates dramatically:</p>
<p>&#8220;Oscar has the very same feedback curve as Sam, but his is shifted a little to the right, toward eating too much. One day Sam eats slightly more than he needs, and the next day slightly less. But since feedback keeps him within the range his metabolism can adjust to, Sam&#8217;s weight stays the same. When Oscar eats slightly too much, though, he&#8217;s pushed immediately into the region where he packs on weight. The next day, like Sam, he may eat less but, since that&#8217;s within the flat part where metabolism compensates, he keeps all the weight he packs on whenever he eats a little too much.</p>
<p>The shift in Oscar&#8217;s feedback curve with respect to his body&#8217;s need for calories acts as a ratchet; each excess runs his weight up, but equivalent shortfalls don&#8217;t burn off the excess weight. Over time, Oscar begins to see the evidence of this on the scale and in how his clothes fit. Having lived with this condition all his life, Oscar knows there&#8217;s only one solution: peel off the pounds. So, for the umpty-umpth time he embarks on a diet: perhaps a sure-fire plan that&#8217;s worked before, or maybe the current rage all the celebrities are swearing by.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BuddyRich</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79839</link>
		<dc:creator>BuddyRich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:17:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79839</guid>
		<description>Exercise has plenty of other benefits than strictly weight-loss and is essential.  For one, it will increase your muscle mass and hence your BMR (ie. Basal Metabolic Rate, the amount of calories you burn at rest) and as a second, it will lower your cholesterol (more specifically raise the good HDL levels so your overall ratio is better).  Not to mention, no matter how you slice it, when dieting you burn more than just fat, you are likely losing muscle mass as well, exercise will help counteract that to some extent.

Now, if you are grossly overweight, diet alone will work, and is actually recommended as physical activity is stressful at extreme weights but its when you get down to that last 30 or so pounds to lose, that diet alone loses its effectiveness (just as exercise alone does... the body adapts and you start getting less results for the same things, thats why change in exercise routine and the odd cheat day in food are valuable, to stop the system from getting complacent). 

Not to mention, when you do lose significant amounts of weight and have been overweight for sometime prior, loose skin will be a problem.  At least with exercise (specifically weight lifting) you can sculpt and tone areas to hide it (not completely though...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exercise has plenty of other benefits than strictly weight-loss and is essential.  For one, it will increase your muscle mass and hence your BMR (ie. Basal Metabolic Rate, the amount of calories you burn at rest) and as a second, it will lower your cholesterol (more specifically raise the good HDL levels so your overall ratio is better).  Not to mention, no matter how you slice it, when dieting you burn more than just fat, you are likely losing muscle mass as well, exercise will help counteract that to some extent.</p>
<p>Now, if you are grossly overweight, diet alone will work, and is actually recommended as physical activity is stressful at extreme weights but its when you get down to that last 30 or so pounds to lose, that diet alone loses its effectiveness (just as exercise alone does&#8230; the body adapts and you start getting less results for the same things, thats why change in exercise routine and the odd cheat day in food are valuable, to stop the system from getting complacent). </p>
<p>Not to mention, when you do lose significant amounts of weight and have been overweight for sometime prior, loose skin will be a problem.  At least with exercise (specifically weight lifting) you can sculpt and tone areas to hide it (not completely though&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Crockford</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79838</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Crockford</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79838</guid>
		<description>&quot;Losing weight is mostly a matter of intentional starvation.&quot;

Starvation produces temporary weight loss. When the starvation stops, the weight is regained and exceeded. This is sometimes called the yo-yo effect. I am writing about permanent weight loss. If the loss is not permanent, then the dieting is just ineffective self-torture.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Losing weight is mostly a matter of intentional starvation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Starvation produces temporary weight loss. When the starvation stops, the weight is regained and exceeded. This is sometimes called the yo-yo effect. I am writing about permanent weight loss. If the loss is not permanent, then the dieting is just ineffective self-torture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: .</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79701</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79701</guid>
		<description>&quot;A wise engineer once said that all systems, regardless of composition, do one of three things: blow up, oscillate, or stay about the same. Once you understand feedback, you know why this must be. If a system blows up, it is governed by positive feedback. If it stays about the same, negative feedback is on the job. If it oscillates, either negative or positive feedback can be in charge. You have to look more closely at the details.

Feedback doesn&#039;t explain everything, but it explains a great many things.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;A wise engineer once said that all systems, regardless of composition, do one of three things: blow up, oscillate, or stay about the same. Once you understand feedback, you know why this must be. If a system blows up, it is governed by positive feedback. If it stays about the same, negative feedback is on the job. If it oscillates, either negative or positive feedback can be in charge. You have to look more closely at the details.</p>
<p>Feedback doesn&#8217;t explain everything, but it explains a great many things.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79691</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79691</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html&quot; title=&quot;The Rubber Bag&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;This chapter&lt;/a&gt; explains it well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/e4/rubberbag.html" title="The Rubber Bag" rel="nofollow">This chapter</a> explains it well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2009/07/04/diet-for-nerds-and-computer-programmers/#comment-79690</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/?p=5855#comment-79690</guid>
		<description>Crockford seems to emphasize exercise a lot more than Walker does, though I don&#039;t think the math supports him. It takes a lot of hours to counteract the effect of relatively small numbers of calories.

Losing weight is mostly a matter of intentional starvation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crockford seems to emphasize exercise a lot more than Walker does, though I don&#8217;t think the math supports him. It takes a lot of hours to counteract the effect of relatively small numbers of calories.</p>
<p>Losing weight is mostly a matter of intentional starvation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

