As you may or may not know, in addition to being a student of physics, I worked for two summers at a weight loss camp. And so it was that I thought to apply thermodynamics to what was happening to my campers.
Some campers would lose weight steadily; others would have slow and fact points; in the long term, they all improved dramatically. And yet, when you use weight to try to measure your fitness, things tend to fall flat a little more often, and you see quirks.
As BMI measures it, I hit the "overweight" marker at 184 pounds - at which point my body fat percentage is still quite healthy. If I drop to 170 pounds (BMI 23, still in the upper half of "normal") my body fat percentage is dangerously low. I would probably drop dead before hitting the "underweight" BMI (136 pounds).
The quirk here is lean body mass. I have a relatively high lean body mass; my campers, universally, were increasing their lean body mass as well, strengthening muscles they didn't know existed, drinking plenty of water, etc. And at the most extreme end of it - you can be burning through calories and still adding just a little bit of mass as you reshape your body. I've seen it; I've also seen, on weighing day, how terribly discouraged campers get when they discovered they lost little to no weight that week.
Hidden in that news is the amazing improvements they made in their fitness. They can now hike further, lift more, swim more quickly, and they may even have lost an inch on their waistline. And when we're worried about our appearance, it's that - not the proxy of total weight - that makes the difference when people look at you.
So if you're working out hard and watching your diet, and yet you just don't seem to be losing weight, cheer up. You're still probably improving your health and appearance.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
The key of falsifiability
When I hear people talking about teaching intelligent design, "proofs" of economics, and touting home remedies, I think about what makes something a scientific theory.
It needs to make some kind of predictions that can be tested. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable; it simply has to be the case that measurements could be made that would make it false. When they fail to do so, we proclaim the theory good.
An object falling does not prove gravity. I could just as easily say that things want to be close together, that celestial bodies naturally move in circles while terrestrial bodies want to be stationary on a low-lying surface, and explain everything that way. Data always underdetermines theory, points underdetermine functions, facts never tell the whole story of a case.
So why? The best theory is the one that walks the knife-edge between falsifiable and false. The slightest changes in the data could invalidate it - but somehow, they haven't. Arguments about government policy illustrate the point perfectly; is the problem too much protectionism, or too much free trade? Too much subsidy, or not enough? We can stretch and contrive a complex explanation justifying ourselves, and in fact, pundits seem to do so all the time.
What would it take for you to disbelieve this idea? If you can answer that question, you know whether you're relying on science or faith to justify your belief.
It needs to make some kind of predictions that can be tested. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable; it simply has to be the case that measurements could be made that would make it false. When they fail to do so, we proclaim the theory good.
An object falling does not prove gravity. I could just as easily say that things want to be close together, that celestial bodies naturally move in circles while terrestrial bodies want to be stationary on a low-lying surface, and explain everything that way. Data always underdetermines theory, points underdetermine functions, facts never tell the whole story of a case.
So why? The best theory is the one that walks the knife-edge between falsifiable and false. The slightest changes in the data could invalidate it - but somehow, they haven't. Arguments about government policy illustrate the point perfectly; is the problem too much protectionism, or too much free trade? Too much subsidy, or not enough? We can stretch and contrive a complex explanation justifying ourselves, and in fact, pundits seem to do so all the time.
What would it take for you to disbelieve this idea? If you can answer that question, you know whether you're relying on science or faith to justify your belief.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Housing strategies
And so, my graduate housing saga continues. After being assigned the more expensive option, and accepting that option, I've received a lease. Within that lease, of course, are a number of restrictions...
... namely, there's to be no smoking anywhere near the building, and no pets whatsoever. At the start of the UC-I graduate housing application, there are questions about cats and smoking. You can apparently come with up to 2 cats.
Hypothesis: My optimal strategy, as someone with a limited budget and allergic to cats, would have been to claim to have 2 cats. This would have guaranteed that I was assigned to the cheaper housing; since they surely don't want too many cats per apartment, that probably would have minimized my chances of being assigned to another cat while saving several hundred dollars per month - on average, enough to keep me rolling in antihistamines in the event I turned out to have to deal with one.
Now, why this information wasn't presented at the start of the process, I can guess, but I have to say I don't like that system so far. And I still have a bone to pick about the affordability of their housing. I foresee an interest in committee-work in my future.
... namely, there's to be no smoking anywhere near the building, and no pets whatsoever. At the start of the UC-I graduate housing application, there are questions about cats and smoking. You can apparently come with up to 2 cats.
Hypothesis: My optimal strategy, as someone with a limited budget and allergic to cats, would have been to claim to have 2 cats. This would have guaranteed that I was assigned to the cheaper housing; since they surely don't want too many cats per apartment, that probably would have minimized my chances of being assigned to another cat while saving several hundred dollars per month - on average, enough to keep me rolling in antihistamines in the event I turned out to have to deal with one.
Now, why this information wasn't presented at the start of the process, I can guess, but I have to say I don't like that system so far. And I still have a bone to pick about the affordability of their housing. I foresee an interest in committee-work in my future.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
I'm studying the shapes of voting systems
Writing this out loud makes it a little more real. Yes, this is what I'm doing. Methods of putting together larger numbers of ballots and coming out with a winner have a shape, and this, somehow, is useful. I'm working on finding shapes. Right now, one of them is looking somewhat hexagonal for some numbers, although it can compress into a line or, when we allow more deviant behavior, morph into a triangle. Then, it also can be unfolded into a solid.
When I put it like that, it sounds like I've gone off the deep end. What will I do next, find the scent of an ethical code? The sound of ideological distributions? Maybe I should turn my problem around - design shapes, and find voting systems that produce them. I wonder what degree of complexity I would need to make a voting d20.
When I put it like that, it sounds like I've gone off the deep end. What will I do next, find the scent of an ethical code? The sound of ideological distributions? Maybe I should turn my problem around - design shapes, and find voting systems that produce them. I wonder what degree of complexity I would need to make a voting d20.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Median voter theorem
Why politicians talk in code
The median voter theorem is an interesting result in the study of elections. Suppose you have some political spectrum, and two candidates. Doesn't matter how many dimensions there are to that spectrum, even, with two candidates; the politician who is closer to the center (median) of voter positions will be closer to more voters. Voters - if acting rationally - will vote for the closest candidate to them.
Voila, so suddenly we have centrist candidates - or do we? There's another problem: Turnout. The further away a voter is from a candidate, the less likely a voter is to turn out. In fact, if they feel far away on the fringe, they may feel the difference between the two centrist candidates is negligible. Perhaps a third party candidate will look attractive - it's time to make a statement!
But what if you can occupy more than one position at once? Suddenly, you can secure much more of the political spectrum. This is why politicians talk in code, and try to position their opponents as extremists; why we see different messages sent through different media. Coded language is understood differently by different segments of the political spectrum, and by segmenting your audience into different groups, it allows you to try to position yourself near the median of each group rather than the whole population.
And this is how a politician masters the median voter theorem; not by moving carefully to the center of the population, but by seeming to be in different places when looked at from different perspectives.
The median voter theorem is an interesting result in the study of elections. Suppose you have some political spectrum, and two candidates. Doesn't matter how many dimensions there are to that spectrum, even, with two candidates; the politician who is closer to the center (median) of voter positions will be closer to more voters. Voters - if acting rationally - will vote for the closest candidate to them.
Voila, so suddenly we have centrist candidates - or do we? There's another problem: Turnout. The further away a voter is from a candidate, the less likely a voter is to turn out. In fact, if they feel far away on the fringe, they may feel the difference between the two centrist candidates is negligible. Perhaps a third party candidate will look attractive - it's time to make a statement!
But what if you can occupy more than one position at once? Suddenly, you can secure much more of the political spectrum. This is why politicians talk in code, and try to position their opponents as extremists; why we see different messages sent through different media. Coded language is understood differently by different segments of the political spectrum, and by segmenting your audience into different groups, it allows you to try to position yourself near the median of each group rather than the whole population.
And this is how a politician masters the median voter theorem; not by moving carefully to the center of the population, but by seeming to be in different places when looked at from different perspectives.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Beauty tips from the furball
Many of you may not have realized I have any interest in cosmetology. Truth of the matter is, I'm interested in everything, and so, here it is - what I know about cosmetic care.
Keep those pores clean and that body free of toxins!
For flushing out the skin regularly, and purging your body of toxins, what works better than a nice long workout followed by thorough rehydration? Sweat pores are tiny and everywhere, and when you're adding and removing a few liters of water, anything water-soluble is likely to go with it - along with some dead skin, dirt, and body oils.
In fact, I now believe that particularly harsh and sour body odor is the result of not having sweated enough recently. I've noticed it with myself - if I haven't done a solid workout lately, I'm going to smell pretty sour the first time I break a sweat. Go on, prove me wrong - take up a regular exercise regimen and tell me you don't feel better about yourself. Or stop, and tell me you think you smell nicer.
What, me smell?
Personally, I'm not fond of scents. Unscented deoderant for me, please - and if I can't find that, a palmful of baking soda works quite well to mute the natural smell. If you must, please be subtle... some of us have sensitive noses, others are allergic, and I, at least, remember some terribly irritating people in high school who wore much too much scent, so I have poor associations with that.
The idea is to smell nice - something that will blend into your deoderant, your surviving natural scent (yes, you still have one), and in all probability your shampoo, conditioner, body wash, soap, lotion, and any other products you use, rather than overwhelm everything. In my humble opinion, one should not to smell like perfume. Your scent will tend to improve with exercise and regular showers, of course.
Yes, showers!
Nothing beats regular doses of epidermal water. Nothing! I go in for at least one shower a day. I recommend it - it's nice, pleasant, helps wash gunk and dirt off your skin, and usually makes you smell better, even if you don't use anything scented. I also have the vague feeling that making your skin soaking wet might moisturize it, too.
Myself, I have very curly hair. I've found it actually looks best with a combination of chlorine and sun bleaching plus regular combing in the shower using copious amounts of conditioner. Following the advice posted in this livejournal group, I've found that using large amounts of cheap conditioner with no sodium laurel sulfate really works. For me, anyway; for those of you with other hair types, I recommend reading around in there. Amazing stuff.
And then... fashion?
No, let's not go there. There are many things I detest about men's fashion, and this entry is positive! If, perhaps, a little sarcastic here and there.
Keep those pores clean and that body free of toxins!
For flushing out the skin regularly, and purging your body of toxins, what works better than a nice long workout followed by thorough rehydration? Sweat pores are tiny and everywhere, and when you're adding and removing a few liters of water, anything water-soluble is likely to go with it - along with some dead skin, dirt, and body oils.
In fact, I now believe that particularly harsh and sour body odor is the result of not having sweated enough recently. I've noticed it with myself - if I haven't done a solid workout lately, I'm going to smell pretty sour the first time I break a sweat. Go on, prove me wrong - take up a regular exercise regimen and tell me you don't feel better about yourself. Or stop, and tell me you think you smell nicer.
What, me smell?
Personally, I'm not fond of scents. Unscented deoderant for me, please - and if I can't find that, a palmful of baking soda works quite well to mute the natural smell. If you must, please be subtle... some of us have sensitive noses, others are allergic, and I, at least, remember some terribly irritating people in high school who wore much too much scent, so I have poor associations with that.
The idea is to smell nice - something that will blend into your deoderant, your surviving natural scent (yes, you still have one), and in all probability your shampoo, conditioner, body wash, soap, lotion, and any other products you use, rather than overwhelm everything. In my humble opinion, one should not to smell like perfume. Your scent will tend to improve with exercise and regular showers, of course.
Yes, showers!
Nothing beats regular doses of epidermal water. Nothing! I go in for at least one shower a day. I recommend it - it's nice, pleasant, helps wash gunk and dirt off your skin, and usually makes you smell better, even if you don't use anything scented. I also have the vague feeling that making your skin soaking wet might moisturize it, too.
Myself, I have very curly hair. I've found it actually looks best with a combination of chlorine and sun bleaching plus regular combing in the shower using copious amounts of conditioner. Following the advice posted in this livejournal group, I've found that using large amounts of cheap conditioner with no sodium laurel sulfate really works. For me, anyway; for those of you with other hair types, I recommend reading around in there. Amazing stuff.
And then... fashion?
No, let's not go there. There are many things I detest about men's fashion, and this entry is positive! If, perhaps, a little sarcastic here and there.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Measuring a libertarian
I've been thinking about this one for a while. There are social libertarians; there are economic libertarians; the idea is less government. And at the end of the day, I think that this might be the best way of all to measure whether or not someone really is a libertarian:
What is out there, that you think is wrong, but nevertheless believe should be legal?
For example, as I mentioned the other day, I think prostitution should be legal - carefully regulated in the public interest, but legal; however, I do think there's something terribly wrong with selling sex services. I'm even bothered by the overly mercantile nature of much dating, by mothers who tell their daughters they should judge a man by the price on the ring he brings them, by the high class escort services that carefully step around prostitution laws, by gold diggers, and by "Who wants to marry a millionaire?"
I am at least a little bit of a libertarian in that way. I want the government to step in because there is a compelling public interest - not because my personal sense of right and wrong is affronted.
What is out there, that you think is wrong, but nevertheless believe should be legal?
For example, as I mentioned the other day, I think prostitution should be legal - carefully regulated in the public interest, but legal; however, I do think there's something terribly wrong with selling sex services. I'm even bothered by the overly mercantile nature of much dating, by mothers who tell their daughters they should judge a man by the price on the ring he brings them, by the high class escort services that carefully step around prostitution laws, by gold diggers, and by "Who wants to marry a millionaire?"
I am at least a little bit of a libertarian in that way. I want the government to step in because there is a compelling public interest - not because my personal sense of right and wrong is affronted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
