Stremf in Numbers
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Coming War with the Old
No figures will be quoted, since this is a Monday morning post.
One of the significant facts cited by the calorie restriction movement is the lifespan of Okinawans (highest number of centenerians per capita). Researchers link this result to the low calorie intake of Okinawans (and Japanese generally). I'm not persuaded.
1) Japanese are smaller and we would expect them to consumer fewer calories based on biology rather than culture.
2) I think there is some correlation/causation confusion in linking lower calorie intake to longer lifespan, since "small" people in high-calories cultures live longer than "large" people in those same cultures.
Am I just trying to defend my love of food? Probably.
One of the significant facts cited by the calorie restriction movement is the lifespan of Okinawans (highest number of centenerians per capita). Researchers link this result to the low calorie intake of Okinawans (and Japanese generally). I'm not persuaded.
1) Japanese are smaller and we would expect them to consumer fewer calories based on biology rather than culture.
2) I think there is some correlation/causation confusion in linking lower calorie intake to longer lifespan, since "small" people in high-calories cultures live longer than "large" people in those same cultures.
Am I just trying to defend my love of food? Probably.
Labels: calorie-restriction mommy is sure to fail
¶ 6:31 AM 0 Comments
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Some of my life cycles
14 - Struggling mightily to obtain material possessions
18 - Struggling mightily to redefine my relationships
22 - Struggling mightily to obtain material possessions
26 - Struggling mightily to redefine my relationships
30 - ....
18 - Struggling mightily to redefine my relationships
22 - Struggling mightily to obtain material possessions
26 - Struggling mightily to redefine my relationships
30 - ....
Labels: turn
¶ 11:46 AM 0 Comments
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Self, I've (Not) Known Ye
Stoli Vodka has an ad campaign out right now that asks the question "Would you have a drink with you?"
How well can we gauge our social cachet? Commentary that everyone thinks they are above average is tired, but it is sobering how difficult it is for us to assess what our relative social strengths and weaknesses are.
Would I have a drink with me?
Probably not, unless I overheard myself talking about something I cared about. My topical conversation is solid, I just struggle through the small talk and am the least approachable person ever.
"You should try to smile more. " - Stripper following the only lap dance I ever paid for.
How well can we gauge our social cachet? Commentary that everyone thinks they are above average is tired, but it is sobering how difficult it is for us to assess what our relative social strengths and weaknesses are.
Would I have a drink with me?
Probably not, unless I overheard myself talking about something I cared about. My topical conversation is solid, I just struggle through the small talk and am the least approachable person ever.
"You should try to smile more. " - Stripper following the only lap dance I ever paid for.
Labels: the law of averages
¶ 1:57 PM 0 Comments
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Hollywood doesn't get fundamental Christianity
I was reading an article about the show True Blood.
I was struck by this passage:
"It was the Fellowship of the Sun that really held my interest, as it has throughout the season. My central problem with the plotline is this: Steve and his followers’ blanket hatred of vampires doesn’t seem as unmotivated and needless to me as the show wants it to seem. It’s not like when fundamentalist Christians launch blanket attacks against gays, and it’s clear that they’ve not evolved along with the rest of society. While the rest of the True Blood world does seem vaguely more accepting of vampires, most of the vampires we’ve seen are or were bloodthirsty killers who have capacity to utterly destroy most humans they come across and are – literally – demonic forces. The vampires we’ve gotten to know are conflicted about the wrong they’ve done, but the show seems to think this is, somehow, enough, as though murdering people is not a sin that should be punished. I realize this is kind of an old argument, but it gets to the heart of what I didn’t like about the show in the first season: True Blood is a show with a cool universe that caters to people predisposed to like vampires. If you’re not one of those people, though, it’s hard to see what everyone sees in them outside of them being generically cool. (Though it’s entirely possible that Alan Ball, just like everyone else in Hollywood, just doesn’t get fundamentalist Christianity.)"
Hear, hear! (Or as my old school Pentecostal brethren would say: "Preach!".)
Christians are easy to make fun of, and deservedly so. But all media (Hollywood based TV media, NY based print media, and DC based political media) get Christians wrong on so many levels.
The biggest whiff, and this is probably because I understand it best, is on the portrayal of the pseudo-supernatural. Christian exorcisms and "revivals" are portrayed as ironic or comical. They are, on many levels, but I think there is significant emotion to extract from the fact that the actors in the real-life "spiritual" dramas are acting from a sincere(ly misguided) and (tragically) benevolent set of emotions, rather than the typically presented xenophobia and helpless mysticism.
Side note: In the old days, I would get frustrated with the use of the word "spiritual" to describe (spineless) Eastern mysticism or New Age philosophy masquerading as religion. In the new days, I've replaced that dogmatic insistence with arguments with my girlfriend that Twilight are poor representations of real vampires.
What was once, will be again. ¶ 11:37 AM 0 Comments
I was struck by this passage:
"It was the Fellowship of the Sun that really held my interest, as it has throughout the season. My central problem with the plotline is this: Steve and his followers’ blanket hatred of vampires doesn’t seem as unmotivated and needless to me as the show wants it to seem. It’s not like when fundamentalist Christians launch blanket attacks against gays, and it’s clear that they’ve not evolved along with the rest of society. While the rest of the True Blood world does seem vaguely more accepting of vampires, most of the vampires we’ve seen are or were bloodthirsty killers who have capacity to utterly destroy most humans they come across and are – literally – demonic forces. The vampires we’ve gotten to know are conflicted about the wrong they’ve done, but the show seems to think this is, somehow, enough, as though murdering people is not a sin that should be punished. I realize this is kind of an old argument, but it gets to the heart of what I didn’t like about the show in the first season: True Blood is a show with a cool universe that caters to people predisposed to like vampires. If you’re not one of those people, though, it’s hard to see what everyone sees in them outside of them being generically cool. (Though it’s entirely possible that Alan Ball, just like everyone else in Hollywood, just doesn’t get fundamentalist Christianity.)"
Hear, hear! (Or as my old school Pentecostal brethren would say: "Preach!".)
Christians are easy to make fun of, and deservedly so. But all media (Hollywood based TV media, NY based print media, and DC based political media) get Christians wrong on so many levels.
The biggest whiff, and this is probably because I understand it best, is on the portrayal of the pseudo-supernatural. Christian exorcisms and "revivals" are portrayed as ironic or comical. They are, on many levels, but I think there is significant emotion to extract from the fact that the actors in the real-life "spiritual" dramas are acting from a sincere(ly misguided) and (tragically) benevolent set of emotions, rather than the typically presented xenophobia and helpless mysticism.
Side note: In the old days, I would get frustrated with the use of the word "spiritual" to describe (spineless) Eastern mysticism or New Age philosophy masquerading as religion. In the new days, I've replaced that dogmatic insistence with arguments with my girlfriend that Twilight are poor representations of real vampires.
What was once, will be again. ¶ 11:37 AM 0 Comments
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Basketball Obscurantism
Part 1
People talk about the greatest players by position of all-time, and usually center comes down to Shaq or Bill Russell. I don't understand a great deal of the nuance of basketball so I won't argue about those choices.
But I don't think Hakeem Olajuwon gets the credit he deserves. He was a career 22/11/3 (with 2 steals) player, and that includes several junk seasons at the end of his career. His scoring average jumps to 24/12/3 if you remove those seasons. And his 89-90 season was on of the most impressive statistical seasons ever by a center: 24 points, 14 rebounds and 4.5 blocks (!) per game. Only Shaq and David Robinson have statistical seasons that are comparable, in my opinion.
These stats don't really mean anything, but what absurd box scores for a single player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-by-five_%28basketball%29#Five-by-five
(Scroll up on that link to see NBA quadruple doubles.)
Part 2
Allen Iverson's 33 ppg in 2005-2006 is the most impressive statistical accomplishment of the past 15 years. Best for the team? Probably not. Jordan's 37.1 ppg in 86-87 was amazing, and by far the highest total in the post-ABA era, but as a percentage of the league team scoring average, it was only 33%, whereas Iverson was 35%.
BTW, Jordan's 88-89 line: 32.5/8/8/3. Sheesh. (While finishing second in defensive player of the year voting.) We will never see another Michael Jordan.
Rodman's rebounding was pretty amazing as a statistical outlier, but Rodman sacrificed nearly other aspect of his game to grab rebounds, while Iverson had to still run the point, and effectively, averaging almost 8 apg.
Part 3
More on statistical outlier accomplishments:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/usain-bolt-its-just-not-normal/ ¶ 10:47 PM 0 Comments
People talk about the greatest players by position of all-time, and usually center comes down to Shaq or Bill Russell. I don't understand a great deal of the nuance of basketball so I won't argue about those choices.
But I don't think Hakeem Olajuwon gets the credit he deserves. He was a career 22/11/3 (with 2 steals) player, and that includes several junk seasons at the end of his career. His scoring average jumps to 24/12/3 if you remove those seasons. And his 89-90 season was on of the most impressive statistical seasons ever by a center: 24 points, 14 rebounds and 4.5 blocks (!) per game. Only Shaq and David Robinson have statistical seasons that are comparable, in my opinion.
These stats don't really mean anything, but what absurd box scores for a single player:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-by-five_%28basketball%29#Five-by-five
(Scroll up on that link to see NBA quadruple doubles.)
Part 2
Allen Iverson's 33 ppg in 2005-2006 is the most impressive statistical accomplishment of the past 15 years. Best for the team? Probably not. Jordan's 37.1 ppg in 86-87 was amazing, and by far the highest total in the post-ABA era, but as a percentage of the league team scoring average, it was only 33%, whereas Iverson was 35%.
BTW, Jordan's 88-89 line: 32.5/8/8/3. Sheesh. (While finishing second in defensive player of the year voting.) We will never see another Michael Jordan.
Rodman's rebounding was pretty amazing as a statistical outlier, but Rodman sacrificed nearly other aspect of his game to grab rebounds, while Iverson had to still run the point, and effectively, averaging almost 8 apg.
Part 3
More on statistical outlier accomplishments:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/usain-bolt-its-just-not-normal/ ¶ 10:47 PM 0 Comments
