Unexplainable Questions (1 Viewer)

[Libre]

It's called division simply because the cell quite literally divides itself into two, rather than just spawning a new one.

Now rabbits - THOSE things multiply.

And I'd give 50/50 odds that there are an odd number of cells in your body this very moment.

There's a 100% chance that the result of any multiplication by 2 of any integer is an even number.

 

[ConnorGiles]

There's a 100% chance that the result of any multiplication by 2 of any integer is an even number.

But don't cells die in your body on a numerous scale? who's to say that an even number died?

I would say as frothingslosh said 50/50.

 

[Frothingslosh]

But don't cells die in your body on a numerous scale? who's to say that an even number died?

I would say as frothingslosh said 50/50.

This.

If you have two cells and one divides, you now have three cells.

Your cells don't all divide at the same time.

 

[Libre]

This.

If you have two cells and one divides, you now have three cells.

Your cells don't all divide at the same time.

Oh yeah. I see. So Bladerunner is right that you might have 7 cells after a few cell divisions.

Ha Ha!
I tricked Frothingslosh into agreeing with something Bladerunner wrote!!

 

[Libre]

Okay, another thing I've always wondered about.
Is calorie intake and usage a zero sum gain?
What I mean is, suppose you had a limited amount of food to last you for a certain length of time. Like let's say you're alone in a lifeboat and you have a bag of food and no way to add to it by fishing or whatever. You have to survive on what you have. In the movies they always talk about rationing it, you eat just so much a day to make it last.
But is that really right?
Doesn't it really make zero difference if you ate the food all at once or ate it a little bit at a time? You have a certain number of calories in that food, and you can't increase the amount of calories by eating it slowly. Your body is good at storing extra calories and then metabolizing them later. Maybe it's better to eat it, than if the food is stored outside the body where the elements and microbial action can degrade it. Actually it might be even MORE calorie efficient to eat all the food at once and then let the body budget it out on its own schedule. Or maybe it IS right because once the body realizes it's starving - which would take some time - it economizes and your metabolism slows.
By the same token, but not in a survival situation but on a weight loss program, they say have 5 small meals a day instead of 3 larger meals. Does this make any sense? How can this help you lose weight? I'm usually hungrier right after I eat a small mean than before I ate.
So my question - is calorie intake a zero sum gain proposition, or are there strategies to either burn calories faster or slower, depending on your goals?

 

[Bladerunner]

Yeah, we're ok. I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I wouldn't put it exactly in the same way - that mass is at the MERCY of cell division and genetics, because there are lots of other factors - metabolism, available nutrients, etc, but I won't quibble about it - so ok, I agree with you - now that you've clarified.
One thing though, and maybe I'm nitpicking, but you can never have an odd number such as 7 after a process of multiplying integers by 2. It's misleading that it's called "cell division" because the arithmetic process seems to me to actually be multiplication.

glad you caught that!...... I evidently added the first (original) cell plus the first two instead of just the two. Your right it should have been six. Hey what is one cell amongst friends.

The part about genetics should have covered all of the other parts since it is in the parts of genetics that determine what the organism needs to survive.

Thank you for agreeing. lol,,,,,,I had to work hard for that OK.

Blade

 

[Libre]

Yeah, Blade - I made you earn it.


But actually Froth demonstrated that it COULD be 7 cells, since nothing says they all divide at the same moment - and I wrote that I tricked him into agreeing with you!

I like the role of peacemaker. I'd do pretty much anything to make you guys bury the hatchet.

 

[Bladerunner]

It's called division simply because the cell quite literally divides itself into two, rather than just spawning a new one.

Now rabbits - THOSE things multiply.

And I'd give 50/50 odds that there are an odd number of cells in your body this very moment.

It is better than that Frothingslosh because there are cells that cannot divide for one reason or the other. Usually these cells are defective except in the case of cancer were the cells (damaged cells) still multiply. If they can ever figure out why some cells that are bad do not divide and the cancer cells do, then they would make a big step in curing cancer or some forms of it. They might just be able to turn off the bad cells from replicating themselves.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh yeah. I see. So Bladerunner is right that you might have 7 cells after a few cell divisions.

Ha Ha!
I tricked Frothingslosh into agreeing with something Bladerunner wrote!!

I have no problem agreeing with him when he's right. It may have even happened twice.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I like the role of peacemaker. I'd do pretty much anything to make you guys bury the hatchet.

Heh.

You give the two of us a hatchet and it may not get buried where you're hoping.

 

[Libre]

I'm bumping this because it may have been missed in between Bladerunner's and Frothingslosh's slings and arrows.

Another of my explainable questions. I'm a curios fellow.

Okay, another thing I've always wondered about.
Is calorie intake and usage a zero sum gain?
What I mean is, suppose you had a limited amount of food to last you for a certain length of time. Like let's say you're alone in a lifeboat and you have a bag of food and no way to add to it by fishing or whatever. You have to survive on what you have. In the movies they always talk about rationing it, you eat just so much a day to make it last.
But is that really right?
Doesn't it really make zero difference if you ate the food all at once or ate it a little bit at a time? You have a certain number of calories in that food, and you can't increase the amount of calories by eating it slowly. Your body is good at storing extra calories and then metabolizing them later. Maybe it's better to eat it, than if the food is stored outside the body where the elements and microbial action can degrade it. Actually it might be even MORE calorie efficient to eat all the food at once and then let the body budget it out on its own schedule. Or maybe it IS right because once the body realizes it's starving - which would take some time - it economizes and your metabolism slows.
By the same token, but not in a survival situation but on a weight loss program, they say have 5 small meals a day instead of 3 larger meals. Does this make any sense? How can this help you lose weight? I'm usually hungrier right after I eat a small mean than before I ate.
So my question - is calorie intake a zero sum gain proposition, or are there strategies to either burn calories faster or slower, depending on your goals?

 

[ConnorGiles]

I'm bumping this because it may have been missed in between Bladerunner's and Frothingslosh's slings and arrows.

Another of my explainable questions. I'm a curios fellow.

Okay, another thing I've always wondered about.
Is calorie intake and usage a zero sum gain?
What I mean is, suppose you had a limited amount of food to last you for a certain length of time. Like let's say you're alone in a lifeboat and you have a bag of food and no way to add to it by fishing or whatever. You have to survive on what you have. In the movies they always talk about rationing it, you eat just so much a day to make it last.
But is that really right?
Doesn't it really make zero difference if you ate the food all at once or ate it a little bit at a time? You have a certain number of calories in that food, and you can't increase the amount of calories by eating it slowly. Your body is good at storing extra calories and then metabolizing them later. Maybe it's better to eat it, than if the food is stored outside the body where the elements and microbial action can degrade it. Actually it might be even MORE calorie efficient to eat all the food at once and then let the body budget it out on its own schedule. Or maybe it IS right because once the body realizes it's starving - which would take some time - it economizes and your metabolism slows.
By the same token, but not in a survival situation but on a weight loss program, they say have 5 small meals a day instead of 3 larger meals. Does this make any sense? How can this help you lose weight? I'm usually hungrier right after I eat a small mean than before I ate.
So my question - is calorie intake a zero sum gain proposition, or are there strategies to either burn calories faster or slower, depending on your goals?

I will have a crack at this, Although shooting blind here.

I would say rationing be it tried and proven would be the best course of action due to eating all of the food at once would make your stomach digest everything (not just little bits at a time).

So eating little bits at a time (Rationing) would force your body to digest small amounts.

We are also not taking into account how much this person usually eats on a daily basis.

If they ate a larger portion of food per day then the normal person, eating small amounts simply would not help them. If you didn't eat much on the usual day and only ate little meals anyway then your body would be used to it and you would feel less hungry over a longer period of time

Hope this may have helped a little. I'm not a huge eater - I would say I eat at an average rate but in that situation I would eat small portions at a time.

EDIT: In answer to the last question, I would say to lose calories slowly or gain calories : Eat More, Drink Protein Shakes (I do this daily ), Do less activities. Burn it Faster, Do more activities (Gym, Running, Rowing, Swimming etc...)

 

[Frothingslosh]

I honestly don't know enough about dietary science to answer this one. I would expect that stretching the rations out works out better because the human body is capable (to a point) of running at a reduced calorie intake for some time before negative effects kick in, and because in many cases people eat rather more calories than is actually needed for survival.

As to the last question, you can either decrease caloric intake or increase calorie usage. For weight loss, it's generally considered to do both, aiming for slow but steady weight loss.

 

[Bladerunner]

Believe it or not...Frothingslosh has it the closest of all. The human body can last about 2 weeks without any intake of food. Water 7 days. Way to go Frothy!!!!!

Rationing of food is the best way to enable the body to stay alive 'the Longest'. We see the results of rationed food (long term) on the Jewish survivors of prison camps during WWII. The body ravages all the cells where the carbohydrates (FAT) are stored (muscle, etc) converts this to energy, (sugars) until there is no more and then deaths comes.

Calories are energy, carbohydrates/starches mostly. From the time you place something in you mouth until it is fully absorbed in the intestines, your body breaks down these carbohydrates into various forms of sugars, minerals (NA, K, etc), etc. in order for the body to function. Sugars being the most important since it is the energy source of all cells. In the rationing process, the body uses what you eat and if it needs more (depending upon you activities) it will get them from your muscles and other cells of the body that commonly store unused carbohydrates or FAT. The amount extra is minimized by rationing.

If you eat it all at once, the body stores some of what it does not need, gets rid of a lot of the excesses by way of defecation and urination, sweat, etc. and uses only what it needs at that time. It then pulls from the Fat (carbohydrates, etc) from your body and converts it to energy( glycogen (sugars)) the cells can use. No, being really fat will not help because after so long, keto-acidosis builds up in the body to the point that it cannot sustain life. Thus the two weeks.

I have tried to keep this a non-technical as I can remember?

One other thing: WHY only 7 days without water.

The body is (50-65%) water and that means each cells uses water as a conduit (said that before somewhere) to shuttle sugars and other nutrients to the cells. Once water is diminished, the cells start dying. To survive a two week period without eating, one must he hydrated and then you die.

Blade

 

[Libre]

Frothy

I have no problem agreeing with him when he's right. It may have even happened twice.

Blade

Believe it or not...Frothingslosh has it the closest of all. The human body can last about 2 weeks without any intake of food. Water 7 days. Way to go Frothy!!!!!

Wow - I should have gone into Diplomacy. I think I'm having an effect on these guys!

Now, about my question.
Well, sh!t.
Here I am in a lifeboat and I just ate all my food at once, on the zero-sum-gain theory (sorry, I meant hypothesis).
I guess I should have checked with you guys first.
Oh well, I might as well enjoy the boat ride!

 

[Bladerunner]

Frothy


Blade


Wow - I should have gone into Diplomacy. I think I'm having an effect on these guys!

Now, about my question.
Well, sh!t.
Here I am in a lifeboat and I just ate all my food at once, on the zero-sum-gain theory (sorry, I meant hypothesis).
I guess I should have checked with you guys first.
Oh well, I might as well enjoy the boat ride!

At least you can hope against hope that someone finds you within the limits of what your body can take or NOT!.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

I'm bumping this because it may have been missed in between Bladerunner's and Frothingslosh's slings and arrows.

Another of my explainable questions. I'm a curios fellow.

By the same token, but not in a survival situation but on a weight loss program, they say have 5 small meals a day instead of 3 larger meals. Does this make any sense? How can this help you lose weight? I'm usually hungrier right after I eat a small mean than before I ate.
So my question - is calorie intake a zero sum gain proposition, or are there strategies to either burn calories faster or slower, depending on your goals?

Just trying to answer the second part of your question. I think that they are trying to reduce the amount of carbs the body takes in thus forcing the body to use the amount taken in without storing any of it. Activity is the key to everything. Can yoiu walk up the stairs of your building or can you run up it. I remember when I was younger (quite a bit) I could run up the side of a moderately angled mountain with a chain saw in my hand. I can still walk up that mountain with a chain saw in my hand without stopping.

Obesity did not use to be such a problem mainly because to survive people had to get out and hustle. Now days a lot of them simply sit on the couch and collect a checkn and EAT!. There are the jobs that require you to sit or stand in one place and this too helps increase the weight especially if it is coupled with eating of large meals and/or so-called fast foods. Before, I make someone mad, the older we get the larger we get. Your body tries to make adjustments and does a pretty good job of it. Plus you don't exercise as much as you use to. So at 30 I weighed 160- 170 lbs now days it is more like 200lbs. In the summer time when I get really active in the field (less these days)I can get it down to around 190- 195.

Blade\

 

[kevlray]

Some years ago (lets say about 30). I worked in Yosemite. I ate a lot (not necessarily healthy food). Had a job where I was on my feet for most of a shift. Most days I would take a hike for two to three miles (up to 12 on my days off). I probably weighed less than 180 pounds (not sure what that translates to stones). Now I am about 230 pounds sitting at a desk getting a little exercise most days (ride or walk to work, under two miles). A lot of times I would like to get more exercise, but my knees and hips give me a lot of pain.

 

[Libre]

It's safe to say most of us over 40 have put on some weight and become somewhat less active since our teens and 20's. I've always had a healthy appetite. When I was younger I was always running here and there - very active - and never put on weight. I'm of a small frame but muscular - 5'4" and 125 lbs in high school. Now that I'm in my 60's, I still have that healthy appetite, but have to struggle to stay at 150 lbs. I go to the gym, work out, play golf, ride my scooter daily, but no matter what I do, if I let myself "go" for a few weeks my weight starts to shoot up - and you can see it in my face and my belly. So I stay vigilant and keep going to the gym. I'm comfortable at 150 but any more than that and I start to feel like a stuffed sausage.
Outside of a survival situation - just normal living - I can't see why distributing food over a longer period of time (i.e. 5 or 6 smaller meals a day) is better than fewer, larger meals as long as the same amount of food is consumed. Humans are not "grazing" animals, who chew and chew all day. We're hunters and gatherers, who would normally expect to get their food much more sporadically - maybe even every few days (in the early days) and certainly we're not designed to be constantly in a mode of eating bits at a time, all day.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Frothy


Blade


Wow - I should have gone into Diplomacy. I think I'm having an effect on these guys!

Now, about my question.
Well, sh!t.
Here I am in a lifeboat and I just ate all my food at once, on the zero-sum-gain theory (sorry, I meant hypothesis).
I guess I should have checked with you guys first.
Oh well, I might as well enjoy the boat ride!

Well, you're boned.

Last supper much?