Sunday, June 05, 2011

Interesting recently

A video about doing things more effectively/more efficiently, such as peeling a hard-boiled egg.

The futility of diet restriction to improve health, tested by soldiers.
For the first three months, the men ate three hearty meals per day, totaling roughly 3,200 calories. During the second part of the study, lasting six months, food was rationed to two calorie-restrictive meals per day; study participants were then monitored for three months for effects. Only three months into the six-month starvation-phase of the meal plan, the participants just about went crazy.

How crazy? Two ended up being hospitalized in psych wards. In order to get out of the study, one cut off his fingers with an ax while on a supervised visit to a friend’s house. Two others chewed so much gum (as many as 40 packs a day each) that their mouths bled. One started compulsively digging food out of garbage cans and lying about it. Another began hoarding photos of food from magazines.

Keys gave his starving subjects psychological tests throughout the experiment and found, within only a few weeks on the starvation plan, that the healthy young men had become neurotic and psychotic. They’d lost their ambition, self-discipline and mental alertness, along with their ability to focus and comprehend. Their energy levels had been drained.

Now, here’s the scariest part of all: This “starvation” diet, the one that sparked psychosis and mutilation among these starving study participants, allowed an average of 1,570 calories.

That’s right, a little more than 1,500 calories. Anyone who has followed any sort of popular, mainstream diet in the last few decades knows that 1,500 calories is often prescribed as an average calorie limit. Several registered dietitians are still suggesting even less, a 1,200-calorie-a-day diet.

And, from the excellent blog Nolo Irritare Leones, sense about image and clothing choices.
People choose clothes for a variety of reasons, and aren’t mind readers, so there’s no guarantee that the fact that she dresses in a way you consider sexually enticing means she was looking for sexual attention. But also, yes, she may well have dressed that way to appeal – to her boy friend, to her girl friend, to her husband, to the cute man or woman she’s hoping to win, or to people she knows but not to strangers, or to people her age but not people older, or to people she hasn’t already rejected. If I walk into a restaurant, and ask if they’ll take my credit card, I’m indicating an interest in food. I am surely not indicating an interest in someone grabbing me and stuffing food of his choice down my throat, over my protests.

Men who rape look, above all, for vulnerability, and the likelihood that they’ll be able to get away with it. If “slutty” clothes have anything to do with that judgment of vulnerability, it’s precisely because people make excuses for rape in that case.