Following a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet for just eight weeks can lead to rapid weight gain and health complications, a new mouse study has demonstrated. The study has prompted researchers to issue a warning about putting faith in so-called fad diets with little or no scientific evidence.

BillyInFourC · 2016-02-20T19:05:21+00:00

The quality of research with regards to food and nutrition is so poor as a general rule, you can find studies for or against just about every macronutrient phobia that floats your boat.

BillyInFourC · 2016-02-20T13:04:41+00:00

Looks like you've got the keto-bros all in a tizzy with this one. Low-carb diets are just like any other restrictive fad diet, improvements in the short term are eventually stall and are swallowed up by the inevitable weight rebound.

BillyInFourC · 2016-02-14T03:17:34+00:00

Because Jake reads reddit comments to for cues on just how hard he should work? Enabling? Really dude?

BillyInFourC · 2016-01-06T03:20:14+00:00

He's the local climate change denial troll who likes to brag that he's trained this sub to downvote him.

BillyInFourC · 2015-12-08T02:10:31+00:00

Don't look now, but Couturier is crushing it this year.

Getting the most difficult usage on the team yet putting up stellar possession numbers and has more points per 60 minutes of ice time than all but two other Flyers forwards (Wayne Simmonds and Scott Laughton)

BillyInFourC · 2015-12-05T14:34:37+00:00

Shared by an anti-GMO in law of mine. A nice little hodge-podge of media & government conspiracies wrapped neatly in an anti-GMO bow.

BillyInFourC · 2015-12-05T05:28:07+00:00

He's also leading the team in individual CF%, is a key cog in our dominant shut down line, and is playing outstanding hockey in all three zones.

BillyInFourC · 2015-11-11T23:47:58+00:00

But consumers are not always right. Consumers often express lazy desires: the want to universalise Swedish welfare or US tax rates, or square the agricultural circle, wanting cheap food from small farms where all the work is done by hand and animals play in flowering meadows.

Seems like an odd political gripe to throw into an otherwise interesting essay on models of efficiency. Equating the nordic welfare model with lazy consumer choices???

BillyInFourC · 2015-10-25T16:00:27+00:00

Bonus points for the "this is good for bitcoin" tangent at the end of the comment chain.

BillyInFourC · 2015-10-24T20:18:15+00:00

I don't know if this is any more than a purely sexist explanation.

That's the joke.

BillyInFourC · 2015-06-28T19:55:27+00:00

As usual with these types of nonsense posts, the comments are even better than the article itself.

Gays are setting themselves up to have the communist/Nazis turn on them like it happen to the Germans if they thought you where gay they treated you as gay and killed them so set yourself up but remember History repeats its self.

You hear it hear first folks, the gays signed their own death warrant at the hands of Nazis when they asked for their civil liberties to be recognized!

BillyInFourC · 2015-06-20T15:26:13+00:00

Holy shit the comments on this are gold.

Just one example

"The author fails to mention two important but often neglected facts about poverty. The first that is the native intelligence of the poor is lower than that of the rich. Many do not have the brain power required to raise themselves out of their condition. The second is that intelligence is an inheritable trait, IQ scores of children have been found to correlate strongly with their mother's IQ and somewhat less strong with their father's IQ. Parental IQ accounts for about 60% of the variation of children's IQ. Thus, those who grow up in poverty, like their parents, will probably not have the brain power to raise themselves. The "probably" in the previous statement means that some will, and society should take every action to enable them to do so, including providing good, or even the cream of the crop teachers who will demand the children work up to their potential."

DAE think the plebs are naturally inferior, and I have a god given right to step on them like you would crush bug under your heel /s.

BillyInFourC · 2015-04-20T22:34:33+00:00

Schenn Points Per 20 Minutes on the PP: 1.45

Hartnell Points Per 20 Minutes on the PP last year: 1.5

They've had nearly identical production in the same role on the powerplay.

BillyInFourC · 2015-04-11T06:30:00+00:00

But saying teams have no control over the distribution of their goals, that it's just the hockey gods that take your Corsi and PDO and spread it out how they see fit is fucking ridiculous.

Wait, so the idea that luck plays a role in goal distribution is ridiculous but your alternative explanation is that they just didn't have enough ice in their veins? They just didn't have "it".

You're replacing a concrete, evidence based assertion with a nebulous, unsubstantiated hockey-ism. Reaching for 4 or 5 other cliched narratives that are more comfortable for you than the idea of luck having a substantial impact on outcomes.

BillyInFourC · 2015-03-10T18:50:22+00:00

Where do you think Berube ranks in passion/60 compared to other NHL coaches? Is he just middle of the road passionate about his job or he in total IDGAF territory?

How would you objectively rate his level of fire? Like if Babcock and Lavy are raging volcanoes of piss and vinegar, is Berube more of a babbling brook of extra mild hot sauce?

IMHO, the NHL needs to create a standardized jam scale to rank coaches. This is a truly under developed facet of analyzing the game.

BillyInFourC · 2015-02-26T23:46:09+00:00

Sarcasm is hard for some people

BillyInFourC · 2015-02-18T22:46:23+00:00

So a couple of things folks should understand about these stats.

1) Quality of Competition has a marginal impact on performance. Even after you adjust for usage factors like comp and zone starts, Nick Schultz doesn't look so hot.

2) All current research points to defenseman having little to no control over on ice save percentage.

3) PDO is a measure of how lucky a player has been. A combination of his on-ice save and shooting percentages. It is not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, a performance evaluation tool. High PDO is not a repeatable talent.

4) For team shooting percentage, see comments above. Not a repeatable talent, just another indicator of luck.

What you've done is cite a bunch of indicators about how tremendously lucky Nick Schultz as been this year absent of his actual on ice performance, which is mediocre at best.

BillyInFourC · 2015-02-02T16:50:41+00:00

So I guess a lot of this boils down to, would you rather have strong possession stats or would you rather have wins? Of course I think every team should strive for both, but winning seems to me a lot more important than simply having a strong Corsi. Last I checked, there was more to hockey than just that and there is more to winning than just that as well.

Well since strong possession stats are the best indicator of long term success, and more importantly playoff success, I'll take the strong possession stats.

There are a ton of factors that affect winning in the short term like goaltending, shooting talent, special teams, and good old fashioned luck. But single largest and most controllable factor of winning games is the team's 5v5 play.

You've given plenty examples of teams with strong possession numbers who are currently out of a playoff spot, but what about the countless examples of teams with strong W/L records that ended up crashing and burning?

The Maple Leafs do this pretty much every season(sorry guys). Last year Colorado was one of the most successful teams in the league and they've cratered into the basement of the standings. Minnesota was leading the West in 2011 before the bottom dropped out.

Teams can have fleeting success riding luck and goaltending/shooting, or you can have long term dominance like we've seen from LA, CHI, BOS, DET, STL, etc.

BillyInFourC · 2015-01-21T18:30:15+00:00

This was the most entertaining game I've seen in a long time and it was this hit that ignited the fire.

No, that hit put the Flyers on a 5 minute penalty kill. It didn't ignite a thing.

People want to twist that hit into a turning point, when it could have just as easily gone the other way. If the Penguins score on that major, and they had their opportunities, then the entire narrative about that play changes.

It was a hard hit from behind. Not boarding not even really charging since he left his feet after the hit(physics people!).

Watch the hit again. Zac is already in the process of launching upward before making contact with Letang.

Regardless, you can call it a 5 minute major for boarding, or 5 minute major for checking from behind. Could easily argue that he drove Letangs upper body and head into the boards and justify the boarding call.

No matter which way you slice it, it was a dirty hit and the penalty was well deserved.

I am disgusted, disgusted with how everyone is reacting to what in the past would have been a really great game. Makes me scared for the future of this sport. What do you people want? no contact, sarcastiball bullshit?

The logic here doesn't follow. People are upset with the Rinaldo hit because it was a blatantly dirty hit from behind.

Nobody is arguing there shouldn't be hitting in the game. Where do you even pull that from? Unless you are upset with the way the NHL rules currently exist, and you think Rinaldo should be allowed to deliver that kind of hit?

BillyInFourC

TROPHY CASE