I hate the word dieting. I hate it as much as I hate using the word ‘weight’ when referring to getting lean and dropping bodyfat.But let’s face it, if I had used any other title for the article, the chances of you clicking on it would have gone waaayyyyyy down.So, sometimes you must bend the rules a bit to get what you want.That is exactly what this article is all about. It’s about 5 ways that you can tweak things in your current nutrition to reduce your calorie intake and help yourself to get leaner, burn more fat and lose more ‘weight’.If you want to get in shape for Christmas, our Christmas Countdown Challenge starts on October 29th.If you want to get in shape for the festive season, click the link below and get signed up now.The tips below aren’t special, they have no magical properties and you won’t have to do anything drastic to see some results.The one thing you will have to do however, is try them. You also will have to try them for longer than a week, let’s be realistic here, I’m not giving a diet, I’m showing you how you can implement some small steps so you can see some success, while still eating the same foods you already eat.Let’s get to it;1. DRINK WATER.Yeah, everyone knows that you probably should drink more water throughout the day, (you really should), but that’s not what this is about.It’s about where you will be drinking the water that will help.Right before each meal, drink half a pint to a full pint of water.The water will fill your stomach and make it harder to over eat at that meal.Do this at each meal and you will save some calories from this simple fix.2. USE SMALLER PLATESWe have the tendency to overfill our plates. This wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have the tendency to also eat everything that is on the plate.Eating less can be disheartening for some as they feel that they are depriving themselves.By using smaller plates when having your meals, you are eliminating this feeling of depravation by ‘tricking’ yourself into thinking that you are having a full plate of food at every meal. You are, but you are eating smaller portions by default. 3. INCREASE YOUR PROTEIN AND VEGETABLE INTAKE.Protein is very hard to overeat, by increasing this you will under-eat on the more calorie dense foods.Increasing your vegetables at each meal will do the same thing.Vegetables are lower in calories than starchy carbs so you can over-eat on vegetables and not worry about going over on your calories.Also, like the water, eating your protein rich foods and your vegetables 1st at each meal will also prevent you from going over on your calories at each meal.You don’t have to change anything, just eat these along with the water and you will find that you are less able to over eat on anything else at that meal.4. SWITCH YOUR DRINKS.You could be taking in excess calories through your fluids without even realising that you are doing it.A simple fix to this is to swap your current drinks for the lower calories options or calorie free options.Switch your milk to semi skimmed or fat free.Switch sugary drinks to their calorie free counterparts.Switch the sugar you add to tea and coffee to calorie free sweeteners.Switch flavoured coffees to regular americanos. 5. INCREASE YOUR NEAT.Your NEAT is the activity that we do throughout the day while not exercising.It usually equates to around 30% of our total calorie burn throughout the day and is always higher than the calories we burn during exercise.The issue at the moment is that we are becoming more sedentary due to our jobs and daily lives being more focused on online activities.So, to combat this, get a step tracker and aim for 10k+ steps per day.This will increase your NEAT and will keep you aware of your inactivity throughout the day.If you struggle with some of the things mentioned above and you find it hard to get motivated to change them, my ‘HOW TO LOSE WEIGHT WITHOUT DIETING’ seminar will teach you everything you need to know to get success with your weight loss without having to turn to restrictive diets.It’s on this Thursday night at 7pm here in Letterkenny.DD Fitness: Five ways to lose weight without ‘dieting’ was last modified: October 18th, 2019 by Emmet RusheShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
“The principle of the evolutionary cul-de-sac is commonly invoked to explain the apparent lingering existence of once-diverse groups of organisms,” writes Torsten Eriksson in the April 1 issue of Nature.1 “Maybe that principle itself has had its day.” The case in point are ferns, which long had been thought to have been pushed into an evolutionary dead end by flowering plants (angiosperms). Eriksson’s comments are in response to a research paper on fern diversity in the same issue by Schneider et al.2:Some biological concepts keep popping up, even when they have been shown, time and again, not to be generally true. One well-known example is the ‘biological species concept’, the idea that only those organisms that can cross and produce fertile offspring belong to the same species. This can’t generally be true for many reasons, the most obvious perhaps being that some organisms are not even sexual (such as bacteria and dandelions) and yet have species. Schneider et al. (page 553 of this issue) touch on another of these favourite concepts, the ‘evolutionary cul-de-sac”. This is a common explanation for why some groups that show great diversity in the fossil record still exist but are greatly diminished in diversity, remaining largely unchanged – and supposedly unable to change. The new findings tell us that ferns, at least, do not belong in this category. Schneider et al. conclude that ferns (Fig. 1) have attained their current diversity much more recently than had been thought, and they probably did so as a response to the diversification of flowering plants.So rather than getting pushed aside, ferns actually flourished within the ecosystem invaded by the “newer” flowering plants. Schneider’s international team based their conclusions on molecular data and a re-evaluation of the fossil record, because “a full understanding of trends in fern diversification and evolution using only palaeobotanical evidence is hindered by the poor taxonomic resolution of the fern fossil record in the Cretaceous.” So instead of being squeezed out by competition, Eriksson imagines that the rapidly-diversifying angiosperms caused ferns to undergo “an evolutionary reawakening”, making “a variety of habitats that could be explored by opportunistic organisms.” This seems the opposite of earlier Darwinian and Malthusian assumptions. “Perhaps the whole idea of the evolutionary cul-de-sac is basically flawed,” he concludes.1Torsten Eriksson, “Evolutionary biology: Ferns reawakened,” Nature 428, 480 – 481 (01 April 2004); doi:10.1038/428480a.2Schneider et al., “Ferns diversified in the shadow of angiosperms,” Nature 428, 553 – 557 (01 April 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02361.So another evolutionary principle has been debunked by evolutionists. Wonderful. Keep up the good work.(Visited 108 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
An interesting phenomenon is going on among science news reporters: accusations that “denialists” are lurking about. We are told that deniers or denialists are refusing to accept scientific evidence and are clinging to belief systems in spite of the facts. That would certainly be a serious charge, but it can also be a mask for a denialist to hide behind. How is a bystander to decide who is the real denier? Controversy has a long tradition in science. As we saw in the 05/21/2010 entry, some science educators believe vigorous argumentation should be encouraged. That means that claims should be denied, and counter-claims should be offered in their stead. Most issues of leading journals have sections where scientists take issue with each other’s positions on recent claims. In last week’s issue of Science (05/21/2010), for example, there were five letters to the editor, signed by 71 scientists – some of them very well known – arguing about the meteor impact hypothesis for the Cretaceous extinctions. Undoubtedly the pro-impact scientists feel their evidence is compelling, but what if they resorted to calling their opponents “denialists” for refusing to agree? Only an emotional divide would result – maybe even a name-calling war. In the same way, the use of loaded words like denier and denialist must be examined in context to see if it is warranted, or is rather a means of propaganda. New Scientist initiated the subject with a special report, “Living in denial.” The caption lumped together various subjects of questionable affinity in an image of warfare: “From climate change to vaccines, evolution to flu, denialists are on the march. Why are so many people refusing to accept what the evidence is telling them?” Right away, readers got a taste of the message New Scientist wanted to convey, and right away, Darwin-loving ex-Christian apostate professional skeptic Michael Shermer was there to preach the opening sermon. In his message for New Scientist, “Living in Denial: When a skeptic isn’t a skeptic,” Shermer was careful to cloak science in non-ideological terms: “What sometimes happens is that people confuse these two types of questions – scientific and ideological.” This is the either-or fallacy, failing to recognize that scientism is itself an ideology. Shermer also set his stage to ensure that he was skeptical of everything except his own skepticism. “Thus, one practical way to distinguish between a sceptic and a denier is the extent to which they are willing to update their positions in response to new information,” Shermer explained. “Sceptics change their minds. Deniers just keep on denying.” Yet when Shermer was given new information by Stephen Meyer in a debate about Signature in the Cell a few months ago, he did not update his beliefs about intelligent design; he just kept on denying it. Next in the series, Deborah MacKenzie continued the theme in New Scientist with her contribution, “Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth.” Her entry was a shameless concoction of association (mixing global warming with evolution with fear of vaccination), fear-mongering (evil corporations, death by HIV, suffering children), and glittering generalities “the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe.” It was hardly worthy of scholarly analysis. Richard Panzer’s entry in the New Scientist series, “Living in Denial: How Corporations Manufacture Doubt,” is a short but interesting study about corporate disinformation campaigns. It does not bear on origins, so is not of direct concern to this news service. Similarly, Jim Giles’ entry in New Scientist, “Living in Denial: Unleashing a lie,” tells how the Big Lie is hard to stop in the Internet age. As always, let the buyer beware. And don’t forward messages without checking them out. Michael Fitzpatrick’s entry in the New Scientist series was a blast of cool air in the heat: “Living in denial: Questioning science isn’t blasphemy.” Contrary to the others, Fitzpatrick encouraged dissent and criticized labeling people as “deniers.” He said, “The epithet ‘denier’ is increasingly used to bash anyone who dares to question orthodoxy. Among other things, deniers are accused of subordinating science to ideology.” It’s a form of ad hominem attack, he argued: “How ironic. The concept of denialism is itself inflexible, ideological and intrinsically anti-scientific. It is used to close down legitimate debate by insinuating moral deficiency in those expressing dissident views,” he continued. It serves not to refute your opponent so much as to question his motives. Fitzpatrick did not claim that pseudoscience is not a problem, but insists that name-calling is not the solution. “Such attempts to combat pseudoscience by branding it a secular form of blasphemy are illiberal and intolerant,” he said. “They are also ineffective, tending not only to reinforce cynicism about science but also to promote a distrust for scientific and medical authority that provides a rallying point for pseudoscience.” New Scientist gave Michael Shermer the last word. In “Living in denial: The Truth is our only weapon,” Shermer implied that truth exists. So if deniers of truth exist, how should we respond to them? At least he still believes in the open marketplace of ideas: “My answer is this: let them be heard. Examine their evidence. Consider their interpretation. If they have anything of substance to say, then the truth will out.” Shermer associated Holocaust deniers with evolution deniers: “Holocaust denial has always been on the fringe, but other forms – notably creationism and climate denial – wield considerable influence and show no signs of going away. In such cases, eternal vigilance is the price we must pay for both freedom and truth,” he said. But at least he was thoughtful enough to consider the possibility he could be wrong, or even if not, that his views could someday become the minority – and would not want his views suppressed by the majority. So Shermer believes in the Golden Rule. He seems to be reaching into his Christian childhood for concepts of truth and fairness, because it is questionable where he would find such concepts in Darwinism. Casey Luskin on Evolution News & Views called this a conflicted message. Speaking of minorities, Roger Harrabin found himself in a bit of a minority recently at a Climate skeptics rally in Chicago. As a reporter for the BBC News, he did his best to present the majority in that venue as a bunch of right-wing fanatics, though he did have to acknowledge that among the group was noted geologist and Apollo astronaut Harrison Schmidt, who believes that the current climate change is part of a natural cycle, and some other notable scientists. New Scientist has had another series called Culture Lab. An entry by Amanda Gefter on May 24 bears on the issue of denialism. Accompanied by a photo of atheist protestors at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, her article, “Tracing the fuzzy boundaries of science,” dealt with the demarcation problem – how does one separate science from pseudoscience? Gefter acknowledges that the problem is harder than it might seem. Speaking of the Dover case, she said “It was obvious that the proponents of ID were trying to push a religious agenda into government-funded schools, violating the separation of church and state,” but “Nonetheless, Judge Jones’s task was not simple. He had to rule on whether or not ID is science, and distinguishing science from pseudoscience is harder than it might seem.” Philosophers have long realized that Karl Popper’s falsification criterion is too simplistic, for instance. Instead, Gefter found solace in Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell science from bunk by Massimi Pigliucci (University of Chicago Press), a “brilliant book, which ought to be required reading for, well, everyone.” How did Pigliucci attempt to solve the demarcation problem? The “construction and testing of hypotheses with systematic observations or experiments” is not enough. A science needs “some kind of explanatory framework,” too. Applying that test to astrology, Gefter explains, shows that there is no explanatory framework for why the constellations, which are mere optical illusions based on our position, could influence our behavior. General relativity, by contrast, not only makes predictions that have been confirmed but explains what gravity is. Next, she attempted to apply Pigliucci’s demarcation criteria to intelligent design:When Judge Jones issued his ruling, he declared that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causation and because it “employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s”. A contrived dualism is a false dichotomy – if evolution is wrong then ID must be right – and it highlights ID’s lack of explanatory power. ID is nothing more than an attack on evolution; in and of itself it is nothing more than a belief in God. To see what I mean, try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, “OK, for the sake of argument let’s say evolution is wrong and let’s forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.” Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence.Gefter thus ruled ID as pseudoscience, because it is “rooted in religion”. She and Pigliucci ruled three other things as “almost science– – evolutionary psychology, string theory and SETI, because they are potentially scientific, but not yet grounded in scientific evidence. Gefter ended by taking potshots at the extremes: the postmodernism of Foucault, the outlandish claims of Feyerabend, and the relativists. She positioned herself as a solid progressivist, believing that Bayesian inference and good philosophy of science can nudge us closer and closer to the truth:The idea that science can’t tell us anything about the objective world just because it is a human activity fraught with human flaws and biases is easily refuted the minute that planes fly or atomic bombs explode. Scientists, meanwhile, do us a disservice when they promote scientism – the idea that science can answer every meaningful question we might ask about the world. Between postmodernism and scientism lies a middle way by which objective knowledge of the world can emerge. We ought to think about science as a Bayesian algorithm, Pigliucci argues, echoing the sentiment of many contemporary philosophers of science. Bayesian algorithms calculate probabilities of future events or observations based on prior knowledge. As we gain new knowledge, we feed that back into the equation, “updating our priors” and leading to increasingly accurate predictions. In this way, little by little, science nudges us closer to understanding the way the world really is.Gefter likes philosophy of science – some philosophy of science. She likes logic – some logic. “Philosophers of science were some of Judge Jones’s best resources in the Dover trial and they are some of our best resources as a society dealing with the consequences of science in our everyday lives,” she concluded. “Pigliucci is a perfect example.” For more on Bayesian induction, see “Bayesian Epistemology” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, particularly section 6, “Potential Problems.”There are many names, issues and fallacies in these articles, too many to discuss in detail, but hopefully you latched onto some of them already. To whet your appetite, let’s return to a rhetorical projection theme we’ve used before (02/01/2007 commentary) that is not that unbelievable historically. The Darwinians are usurpers, who have overtaken the castle of science and driven the rightful owners out. They have taken over walls and monuments they did not build, leaving the founders and builders camped outside. The Darwin Party also took ownership of the army and propaganda machinery. Every time the rightful owners demand entry, the usurpers lob stinkbombs over the walls and laugh. Meanwhile, the Darwin Party propaganda machine keeps the peasants inside persuaded that they are the true owners. They set up a Sacred Tree in the temple shrine dedicated to King Charles, whom they parade regularly in his New Clothes at regular intervals with pomp and bombast. Anyone who steps out of line is quickly expelled and sent outside the walls. To maintain the illusion of scientific fairness, occasional parleys with the enemy are arranged, but these are carefully controlled such that the enemy is never given any real power or opportunity for rebuttal in the Party-controlled media, which carefully filter what the peasants are allowed to hear. But lately, the peasants have been seeing increasing anxiety on the part of their handlers. Whispers are going around that the New Clothes are not what they seem; messages from outside the wall are getting through that maybe they can trust their eyes after all. Simplistic? Perhaps. New Scientist has offered more nuanced material than this, but it is still very one-sided and filtered. Here’s Shermer: “We KNOW that evolution is a fact fact fact and the creationists are a bunch of narrow-minded, bigoted pseudoscientific simpletons who won’t go away no matter how much I wish they would, but for a moment, I’ll grant the slightest, remote possibility that they might have a grain of truth in some of the things they are saying, and if we stomp on them too hard, and they win the masses and turn on us, they might take revenge, which could hurt my retirement, so we’d better play nice and endure them and just try to listen to them and convince them, because the TRUTH is our only weapon.” Isn’t he just charming. Dr. Shermer, you loving little skeptic, you, tell us: where did truth come from? Did it evolve? If truth evolves, is it really the truth? Where did the Golden Rule come from? Did you find it in Origin of Species? If a rule evolves, is it really a rule? If a different rule can take its place tomorrow, was it ever golden? Suppose we do become the majority someday, and decide your kind are a danger to society, and should all be locked up. Explain on what moral grounds you should stop us other than survival of the fittest. Here’s Amanda Gefter, a materialist charismatic (04/11/2009): “Philosophy of science is wonderful – as long as I get to pick the philosophers that allow me to punch a creationist. Finding demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience is hard – but Pigliucci is such a genius, he made it easy. He’s almost as great a philosopher of science as Judge John E. Jones. I never realized how easy it is. Give me a bag and let me write ‘explanatory framework’ on it, and give me another bag and let me write ‘Empty’ on it, and I get to decide which systems to put in one bag or the other. I don’t like intelligent design’s explanatory filter, so I’m going to put it into the Empty bag. I don’t like having to explain how chance works in Darwinism, so I’m going to dodge that and ask an I.D. person how God works. I don’t like having to explain Darwinist miracles of emergence, so I’m going to tease I.D. people by forcing them to tell how intelligent agents work. Of course, I don’t ask that of SETI people, so we’ll put them in the halfway house and call them ‘almost scientists’. But I digress. Back to our mission: let’s all follow the Yellow Bayes Road and we will someday reach the Wizard of Understanding!” Isn’t she just charming, Pigliucci tales and all. Thank goodness Fitzpatrick was there to bring us back to Kansas (12/05/2008).(Visited 48 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
“We acknowledge your dedication and selfless service to the betterment of our country,” Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa said at the National Teaching Awards, an event celebrating excellence in South African public education.Primary school children join South African Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa on stage at the 2016 National Teaching Awards at Gallagher Estate in Johannesburg. (Image: GCIS)Now in their 16th year, the awards were held at the Gallagher Convention Centre in Johannesburg on Saturday 27 February. This year’s event was dedicated to Oliver Tambo, president of the ANC in exile, colleague of Nelson Mandela and himself a maths and physics teacher.In his keynote address, Ramaphosa quoted Tambo as saying: “A nation that does not take care of its youth has no future, and does not deserve one.”Since 2000, the Department of Basic Education has hosted the awards to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts made by South Africa’s teachers, often in very difficult conditions, to serve the country’s children – many of whom come from poor communities. According to the department, the event “encourages dedicated and caring teachers in their efforts to develop each learner as a citizen of a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa”.The awards aim to:Focus public attention on the positive aspects of basic education, and raise the public image of the teaching professionRecognise and promote excellence in teachingHonour dedicated, creative and effective teachers and schoolsEncourage best practice in schoolsGive South Africans the opportunity to publicly thank our teachers“We acknowledge with gratitude the very best among our national brigade of educators,” Ramaphosa said. “They know more than anyone that education is the best weapon at our nation’s disposal to eradicate poverty and its dehumanising effects.”Ramaphosa said the government was aware of the daily challenges and struggles teachers face.“We have committed this government to do everything possible to improve the working conditions of teachers,” he said.Billions spent on educationHighlighting how South Africa’s education system has changed since the dawn of democracy, Ramaphosa pointed out that today millions of children receive free quality education.“Government has prioritised education and worked to ensure that our schools receive the attention they deserve … the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech allocated substantial resources to build education infrastructure and improve the overall performance of basic education.”This year’s Budget set aside R228-billion to fund education – the highest allocation in South Africa’s history.“Inclusive and equitable quality education for all is the most effective way to address poverty and its effects on children,” Ramaphosa said.“This resonates very well with the National Development Plan, which says: Improved education will lead to higher employment and earnings, while more rapid economic growth will broaden opportunities for all and generate the resources required to improve education.”He concluded: “By 2030, we will have achieved all these things because we are determined, because we dare to dream, because we work together and, most importantly, because we have the finest teachers in the world.”
Weak salespeople tell the client what they want to hear. Great salespeople tell the client what they need to hear.Want to HearThe weak salesperson tells the client what they believe he wants to hear. They believe that by telling the client what he wants to hear that the client will like them. They believe by telling the client that they can achieve the result they need without making changes and without spending more money, they increase the likelihood of winning their business.But the client’s baby is ugly. Pretending it isn’t doesn’t help the client.And sometimes this strategy works. It works on some clients who need to be important and some who really don’t want to deal with their real issues.Need to HearGreat salespeople tell their clients the truth. They believe that by telling the client what he needs to hear, no matter how uncomfortable, that the client will trust them. The better salesperson knows that the client needs to understand the changes they need to make, why they need to make them, and how to make them in order to improve their results. The better salesperson also knows that helping their clients produce better results often requires asking the client to invest more in those results.The client’s baby is ugly. But your help makes for a much prettier baby.Much of the time, this strategy works. It works on mature contacts who are serious about better producing results and accountable for doing so.Over time, the businesses that are led by people who would rather hear what they want to hear run into big trouble. The baby gets uglier and uglier. After they limp along for a while, the responsibility to make a decision falls to someone who wants to hear what he needs to hear.
February 28, 2019 KUSI Newsroom, Posted: February 28, 2019 Proposed Circus Cruelty Prevention Act impact on animal refuges KUSI Newsroom 00:00 00:00 spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreenshift + ←→slower / faster ↑↓volume mmute ←→seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% XColor SettingsAaAaAaAaTextBackgroundOpacity SettingsTextOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundSemi-TransparentOpaqueTransparentFont SettingsSize||TypeSerif MonospaceSerifSans Serif MonospaceSans SerifCasualCursiveSmallCapsResetSave SettingsSAN DIEGO (KUSI) – State Senator Ben Hueso recently introduced a bill aimed at prohibition on use in traveling animal acts but according to the organization Wild Wonders the bill would basically be the death of wild animal refuges in California.Senate Bill -313 also known as the Circus Cruelty Prevention Act proposes would prohibit a person from using, or allowing to be used, a wild or exotic animal, as defined, in a traveling animal act.The part that Wild Wonders Execuative Director Jackie Navarro says will impact the program is the bill would prohibit outreach educational programs unless they are provided by an organization which is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.“Wild Wonders and hundreds of other smaller private zoos will go out of business, and the incredible learning opportunities provided to children will cease to exist,” said Navarro. Categories: Good Morning San Diego, Local San Diego News, Politics FacebookTwitter