The Yin Blog

A 3500 calorie deficit doesn't equal one pound after all

A few days ago, the NYT ran a story suggesting that the old yardstick of 3500 calories burned/saved = 1 pound lost is in fact inaccurate, and that if you use that as your benchmark, you're not going to lose as much weight as you think you should:

If the 3,500-calorie rule applied consistently in real life, it would result in twice the weight loss that the new model predicts, the authors wrote. This helps to explain why even the most diligent dieters often fail to reach weight loss goals that were based on the old rule.

A more realistic result, he said, is that cutting out 250 calories a day — the amount in a small bar of chocolate or half a cup of premium ice cream — would lead to a weight loss of about 25 pounds over three years, with half that loss occurring the first year.

I've noticed that, according to the calorie tracking program that I've been using for several months now, that I routinely run calorie deficits of 1200 to 3000 calories per week, but my weight has been stable for the past two months. One possibility is that I underestimate my calorie intake, but I try to err on the side of guessing high rather than low. Another possibility is that I overestimate my calorie burn rate, but I don't use the treadmill's calorie count (which I know is too high). A third possibility is that I've overestimated my daily calorie burn rate, which is certainly possible since I have a sedentary job.

The NYT story provides the cleanest answer -- it's harder than you might think to lose weight quickly via caloric deficit.

Still, a goal of losing 25 pounds over 3 years (with 12 in the first year) seems to me to be unduly pessimistic. I managed to shed about 20 pounds in 6 months. It took some changes in eating habits and a lot of exercise, which might not be totally realistic for people without jobs that permit flexibility in work schedules, but even so, half that rate would be 20 pounds in one year.

Early thoughts on "The X-Factor"

I stopped watching "American Idol" after Simon Cowell left, but now he's back with his new show, "The X-Factor." Like "Idol," this one is an Americanized version of a British talent discovery show.

The main gimmick in "The X-Factor" is that the judges actually have to pick talent to work with, so in a real sense, the judges are competing against one another. Here, it's Cowell vs. Paula Abdul vs. LA Reid vs. Nicole Scherzinger.

If that concept sounds familiar, it's because we saw it with NBC's "The Voice" (which I enjoyed quite a bit, actually). To be clear, I'm not saying that "The X-Factor" copied "The Voice," since the British version of "The X-Factor" with the same format came earlier. I'm just saying that the gimmick might not seem as fresh now.

Anyway, the premeire of "The X-Factor" was last night. I already think it's far superior to "American Idol." Why?

1) LA Reid, who seems to have adopted the position of designated foil to Cowell, was far more coherent than Randy Jackson ever was. All you got from Jackson was "it was pitchy" and "it didn't do it for me." Reid offers better critiques and has developed a sharper contrast with Cowell in just the first two hours.

2) Fewer bad auditions. I think this is true, but I'm not totally sure. My wife took control of the remote control and skipped through some of the bad ones.

3) Auditions with backup music.

4) Greater variety of singers, without the ridiculous 16-30 age range mandated by "Idol."

I had been a little skeptical, but the opening night earned some more attention from me.

The death penalty may be a bad idea, but this guy is not the most sympathetic case study against it

I tend to think the death penalty is pretty bad ideally fiscally, because it costs far more to try to execute someone than simply to lock him (or her) up for life; and in these times of budget crunches, I'd think that states are better off spending that money on more schools or whatever. (It's especially bad here in Oregon, since we spend the money to put people on death row, but then we never execute them unless they volunteer for it.) And then on top of the fiscal reasons, I suppose I have unresolved and conflicted feelings about the morality of the death penalty, coupled with awareness of the non-zero incidence of wrongly convicted defendants.

Still, when you read about the execution of someone like Lawrence Russell Brewer, the white supremacist convicted of murdering James Byrd (an African-American) by dragging him to death from a pickup truck, it's hard to get worked up in the particular case. I mean, this is pretty sick stuff:

Six hours later, the bloody mess found after daybreak was thought at first to be animal road kill. Rowles, a former Texas state trooper who had taken office as sheriff the previous year, believed it was a hit-and-run fatality but evidence didn't match up with someone caught beneath a vehicle. Body parts were scattered and the blood trail began with footprints at what appeared to be the scene of a scuffle.

"I didn't go down that road too far before I knew this was going to be a bad deal," he said at Brewer's trial.

Fingerprints taken from the headless torso identified the victim as Byrd.

Testimony showed the three men and Byrd drove out into the county and stopped along an isolated logging road. A fight broke out and the outnumbered Byrd was tied to the truck bumper with a 24-foot (7-meter) logging chain. Three miles (5 kilometers) later, what was left of his shredded remains was dumped between a black church and cemetery where the pavement ended on the remote road.

Of course, I know that the policy question of whether we should have the death penalty has to stand or fall on its own, not based on individual cases, but in principle. At the same time, people like Brewer probably ease acceptance of the death penalty on an emotional level.

On a related note, I'll admit to a degree of inconsistency here. Repairman Jack, the protagonist of F. Paul Wilson's creepy horror/sci-fi/thriller series, once killed a bad guy by securing him to the back of a truck, leaving the guy to be dragged to his death. Jack intentionally killed the guy this way to make him suffer. For some reason, that didn't really bother me too much. It is fiction, and the guy was a really bad dude, I suppose.

 

Is "Star Trek" better than "Star Wars"?

Well, I'd say so, but don't take it from me. None other than William Shatner confirms it.

I read somewhere once (can't remember where) that no matter how awesome you think the "Star Wars" movies are, you have to remember that they start with Jar Jar Binks and end with the Ewoks.

The end of Borders

Our local Borders closed yesterday. I had been meaning to stop by one last time, possibly scavenging some more bargains (I've been on a Nelson DeMille kick lately, but there are still 7 of his books that I don't have), but mostly to see the store before it closed. But it was a busy day, and I basically had to choose between going running or going to Borders. Running won.

I used to shop at Borders a fair amount, especially when I was living in west Los Angeles, and also Oklahoma City during my clerkship. But, I suppose like many others, I gradually turned toward Amazon.com. Life at a law firm was more conducive to online shopping than in-store shopping, though I still made some impulse purchases in the stores. When Borders ended outsourcing its online business to Amazon, though, my loyalties ended up transferring slowly but permanently toward Amazon. And that, multiplied by millions, is probably why Borders is going the way of the dinosaurs, while Amazon is going the way of the mammals.

Cheesy (but awesome) kung fu flicks of the 1970s

This may not come as a surprise, but starting in my pre-adolescent years, I became a big fan of cheesy kung fu flicks, particularly the category known as "Bruceploitation." Naturally, Bruce Li (real name Ho Chung Tao) was my favorite of the would-be successors to Bruce Lee's legacy, and I eagerly lapped up the Saturday afternoon kung fu matinees that KTLA aired during this time. Yes, the acting was . . . not good, and the vocal dubbing even worse. But who could not love the whooshing sound effects that accompanied punches and kicks?

Anyway, not too long ago, I saw that Amazon was selling DVDs of some of the old Bruce Li movies. I correctly anticipated that the actual picture quality would be subpar, but the movies were selling for around $5, so that wasn't unreasonable.

The first one that I bought was The Image of Bruce Lee, which is about a counterfeiting ring or something like that. My memories of it were that it had Bolo Yeung (maybe most notably the antagonist in Jean Claude Van Damme's Bloodsport) as a menacing presence, but not even the main bad guy; and a very pretty female character who teases Li's character and his partner. Oh, and lots of fighting. In fact, I don't remember the plot at all, just that there were lots of fights, including one scene where Li walks into a martial arts school and ends up fighting everyone.

What I discovered on the DVD was that KTLA had done some judicious editing . . . of multiple nude scenes! Which makes complete sense of course, although I guess you could wonder how the broadcast standards department could get concerned about nudity but not care about extreme violence. I mean, if you took the graphic violence away from this movie, you would be left with . . . um, the credits and the ending.

Well, I just picked up Return of the Tiger, another of my favorite Li flicks. I'm wondering if that has some naughty scenes that KTLA spared my pre-teen eyes from seeing. This one has somewhat more of a plot involving a drug war and undercover Interpol agents, but mostly I remember a scene in a gym where Li fights a judo expert, but only after oiling his body up so much that the judo expert can't get a proper grip on him to do any throws.

In case you are wondering, the other Li movies that I'm keeping an eye out for are Exit the Dragon, Enter the Tiger (which is a revisionist alternate history of Bruce Lee's death, with Li's character tabbed by Lee as his avenger), and The Three Avengers (which probably doesn't need any more explanation than the title).

A plausibly persuasive analysis of the decline of al Qaeda's capabilities

Hopefully this isn't an unduly optimistic analysis about the degredation of al Qaeda's capabilities with regard to pulling off another 9/11. It does sound plausible and persuasive.

UPDATE: In connection with the above-linked analysis, consider John Yoo's thoughts about our post-9/11 counterterrorism policies, particularly the use of military force against al Qaeda.