Open Thread: Diet and Exercise
Talk here about food, fitness, etc...
Want to discuss this? Join my forum.
(Due to multi-year, sustained harassment from David Deutsch and his fans, commenting here requires an account. Accounts are not publicly available. Discussion info.)
Messages (105)
Since I have overeating/ bingeing problems, I was experimenting with eating all I want on a whim and just reducing a little everyday. I failed today. It seems the more I eat the more I want to eat. I gained weight and I don't want to gain more.
I'm going extreme and tomorrow I'll fast and then increase 200 calories a day until I reach 1400 and try to stay there.
Is the scale you use to check your weight actually accurate/reliable/precise enough to check your weight on a daily(!?) basis and make fair comparisons?
Even if the scale is accurate, I don't think you can tell much due to variation in the amount of water in your body. Water can make your weight vary a few pounds over the course of a day.
I think the scale is good enough. I know weight can also be the food and water we consume. I've definitely gained fat as I can grab more in my tummy. It makes sense that I'd gain with the amount of calories I was eating.
> Since I have overeating/ bingeing problems, I was experimenting with eating all I want on a whim and just reducing a little everyday.
???
How could you go by whim AND reduce daily at the same time?
Reducing my daily requires reasoning about whether or not you should eat at any particular time.
Following whims means not caring about reasoning.
Am I missing something?
I didn't manage to fast today. It's interesting that although I wanted to eat, I only felt physical signs of hunger (as in much I interpret them correctly) at 3pm. I entertained myself drawing during lunchtime.
I'm not doing anything like I described above anymore. I'm going to try and stay within 1400 calories a day.
>How could you go by whim AND reduce daily at the same time?
>
> Reducing my daily requires reasoning about whether or not you should eat at any particular time.
Yes. I guess that's why it didn't work.
I'm failing at keeping within 1400. I seem to be stuck at overeating. Ideas?
Stop fighting with yourself day in and day out.
> Stop fighting with yourself day in and day out.
I don't get how that's supposed to help.
I don't know how to do CP finding on this issue.
> I'm failing at keeping within 1400. I seem to be stuck at overeating. Ideas?
Why do you describe 1400+ daily calories as over eating?
> Why do you describe 1400+ daily calories as over eating?
I need to eat only 1400 a day to maintain the goal weight I want.
> I need to eat only 1400 a day to maintain the goal weight I want.
How do you know that is true?
>> I need to eat only 1400 a day to maintain the goal weight I want.
>
> How do you know that is true?
It's an approximation to the truth. I used online calculators.
I wanted to try fasting but I'm still undecided. I haven't eaten today yet. But I can't stop thinking of the new pulled pork wrap at McD, though. I'm wasting my day off thinking if to eat or not.
I broke the fast. I'll just restrict to 1400 cals. Not having McD though. I feel like having lighter snacks today. And my fav bread.
ate 1397 Kcal yesterday. i lost 600 g. yay.
>ate 1397 Kcal yesterday. i lost 600 g. yay.
your body weight fluctuates by several kilos daily, do you have any understanding of how weight and diet works?
> your body weight fluctuates by several kilos daily, do you have any understanding of how weight and diet works?
I know. I do.
I only weight in the morning.
600g = 1.3 lbs = 4550 calories.
so you ate 273 calories below maintenance for 1 day, then lost 4550 calories worth of weight.
no.
your use of scales and measurements and stuff is completely wrong. you're getting junk numbers and then trying to make diet decisions with them.
various previous numbers you gave were also bullshit. this is chronic.
>I know. I do. I only weight in the morning.
you clearly know nothing if you think eating less for one day will make any significant difference to your body weight. you could have just had a particularly large shit before. it's also more reliable to weigh in each week rather than each day.
also, your weight isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of your fitness/'thinness'. muscle weighs more than fat etc. this seems incredibly silly and misinformed and you're basing your whole thing off largely irrelevant factors. the fact that you think fasting is even a remotely good idea says a lot as well. frankly, this is worrying. don't you have a child? i hope you aren't subjecting them to this fad diet either.
better than once weekly
i think that daily weighing, which you average to weekly, is better than weighing weekly.
> also, your weight isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of your fitness/'thinness'. muscle weighs more than fat etc. this seems incredibly silly and misinformed and you're basing your whole thing off largely irrelevant factors.
yes. like online calculators which don't take into account any personal details like body-fat percentage (which gets skewed if you're more muscular than the average person).
> 600g = 1.3 lbs = 4550 calories.
>
> so you ate 273 calories below maintenance for 1 day, then lost > 4550 calories worth of weight.
>
> no.
not all that weight loss is calorie weight. it's water too.
but water also creates volume in the body.
it could also be that my metabolism is crazy.
i lost 900g from yesterday and ate 2262 calories. it was a very active day though.
> you clearly know nothing if you think eating less for one day will make any significant difference to your body weight. you could have just had a particularly large shit before.
it seems it's you who doesn't understand the concept of weight.
i didn't say tissue loss. or fat percentage. i have no means to measure that.
> your weight isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of your fitness/'thinness'. muscle weighs more than fat etc.
more muscle makes you bigger too. so less muscle means you get thinner. in appearance.
i'm not looking for fitness.
Leo
You talk about maintaining weight, but also celebrate losing weight, what is your actual goal?
If your goal is not precise, your actions towards that goal can not be tailored for that goal.
So what are you trying to do? Reach a certain goal or hold where you are?
If reach a certain goal:
How much do you weigh and how much do you want to lose?
How quickly do you want to do it?
I want to reach a goal weight and be able to maintain that weight once I reach it.
I weight 65 Kg now.
I want to lose 15 Kg.
I want to lose the weight quickly as possible but without the restriction leading to bingeing and without regaining again which is a cycle I've been stuck at.
> I want to lose the weight quickly as possible but without the restriction leading to bingeing and without regaining again which is a cycle I've been stuck at.
This doesn't make sense to me.
You said that by bingeing you mean eating whatever - like on the days you eat 4,000 with no rules.
You didn't say that you binge on the days that you try to eat less.
It's the days where I restrict a lot that later lead to days I eat too much.
I noticed that I normally I eat 2000 to 3000 cals. Which is too much to be thin.
why do you want to be exactly 50kg?
I don't like irregular numbers. I want to be as thin as possible without being unhealthy.
You don't like irregular numbers? What does that mean?
Ugly numbers. Like 50.4 or 52 or 55.
It's a good thing you use kg, or you'd have to weigh 100 lbs.
I could make up some units in which you're currently 50. Would that help?
No. I'd go for 111 lbs. Which is just above 50Kg.
No. It would not help because I'd still be fat.
Why does it matter that you're fat?
Trying to weight a lucky number is irrational.
weigh*
It's ugly. I don't like to be fat.
It's not an ugly number. It's a nice even number. I don't care if it's exactly 50 Kg. It makes no sense to me to say 50.4 or 51.
If I think I'm too boney at 50 Kg I'll convert to pounds and go for 123 lbs.
I meant: it's not a *lucky* number.
> It's the days where I restrict a lot that later lead to days I eat too much.
Ok so you agree that doing very very low calories is why you binge. Right?
So, to avoid bingeing, don't do very very low calories.
> I noticed that I normally I eat 2000 to 3000 cals. Which is too much to be thin.
Don't you mean "too much to lose weight in a period of time I'm happy with"?
>> It's the days where I restrict a lot that later lead to days I eat too much.
>
> Ok so you agree that doing very very low calories is why you binge. Right?
Yeah. Not doing that again.
> So, to avoid bingeing, don't do very very low calories.
No.
>> I noticed that I normally I eat 2000 to 3000 cals. Which is too much to be thin.
>
> Don't you mean "too much to lose weight in a period of time I'm happy with"?
No. Too much to lose weight at all.
Leo you're not paying close enough attention. Maybe this is part of why you're failing at solving this problem.
You said:
> I noticed that I normally I eat 2000 to 3000 cals. Which is too much to be thin.
Here, do you mean "too much to maintain the weight you want"?
or do you mean "too much to lose weight"?
now i think you mean the 2nd thing. but, what you first wrote didn't say that. you're making it harder for anyone to understand you. and i think that makes it harder for YOU to understand YOU.
>> So, to avoid bingeing, don't do very very low calories.
> No.
i don't follow. what's your reasoning?
>> I noticed that I normally I eat 2000 to 3000 cals. Which is too much to be thin.
>
> Here, do you mean "too much to maintain the weight you want"?
>
> or do you mean "too much to lose weight"?
Why do you think there is a difference? It's too much to lose weight AND maintain the lost weight.
>>> So, to avoid bingeing, don't do very very low calories.
>
>> No.
>
> i don't follow. what's your reasoning?
I meant: No, I won't do very very low calories.
> It's too much to lose weight AND maintain the lost weight.
How do you know it's too much to maintain the lost weight?
Because TDEE decreases when you are a lower weight.
Hmm. It seems I have severe behaviors of BED.
> Because TDEE decreases when you are a lower weight.
By how much?
>> Because TDEE decreases when you are a lower weight.
>
> By how much?
I don't know. I use online calculators. Why does it matter how much? It makes sense that it would happen. You have less body mass to keep alive, you need to produce less energy.
> I don't know. I use online calculators. Why does it matter how much? It makes sense that it would happen. You have less body mass to keep alive, you need to produce less energy.
Isn't it something small like 100 - 200 calories per day? Have you checked?
It's about 250.
i am still stuck at overeating. i have to learn to only eat 2000 cals a day. and worry with weight loss later.
Suggestion re why nobody replies to curi videos
make a new post called "Open Thread: Why aren't you replying to my videos?"
I finished a 7 day fast and I lost weight 13 lbs. Only 5 lbs of are actual tissue loss. I do not know the fat and muscle percentage. I am re-feeding as recommended and restricting to 500 Kcal a day until the end of the month.
how do you know how much of the loss is (fat?) tissue?
tissue is not just fat. it's muscle and fat.
i would not know how that can be measured.
there are scales that show those percentages but i do think it's physically possible to tell that from weight alone.
i can tell i lost fat from what i see and from pinching the skin, but i do not know how much fat i lost. what i've learned is that the body initially loses its glycogen reserves which lead to water loss, then breaks up muscle for energy before entering ketosis. then it burns fat for energy. i was still losing water everyday, though. i don't burn 3500 Kg a day to burn a lb of tissue a day and i was losing more than that. i guess with tissue loss fat loss also occurs.
i've found fasting super easy comparing with dieting. i would have continued if i didn't have a busy, stressful week ahead.
what do you mean by fasting? how many calories do you ingest per day of fasting?
less than 10. i consumed "zero" soft drinks that have 1 calorie and flavored teas to make it more fun. i think next time i will avoid citric acid which can put some ppl off ketosis.
next time i will do a strictly 0 Kcal water fast. for now i'll stay at 500 Kcal until end of Nov, then see results. increase to 1000. survive Christmas but do one's best to not binge. i will pass foward boxes of chocolates for instance.
then i'll fast at least 7 days from the 7th January depending if i'm still losing or maintaining at that point. i'm guessing i will need to loose as i love christmas treats.
isn't there advice that says it's not safe to eat 0cal or 500cal for long periods?
only unsafe if the body was already very underweight and malnourished.
one thing i'm critical about: i was weighting in everyday. now because i know i will gain water weight from re-feeding and muscle weight when i consume more protein, i don't want to see that on the scale. decided to swap for weekly weighing. but this seems like evading reality.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/15/very.low.calorie.diets/
> Diets of less than 800 calories can lead to numerous complications, according to Jampolis, including heart arrhythmias, which could lead to death. Extreme dieters are also at risk of dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, low blood pressure and high uric acid, which could lead to gout or kidney stones, she says. Also, losing weight quickly could lead to gallstones and thinning hair because dieters are getting the minimum amount of nutrition, which can affect hair and bone density.
I see no arguments in what you quoted or evidence.
Or any explanation at all.
you're asking for justification while giving no criticism or alternative.
you're believing ideas without explanation, on medical authority alone.
> Extreme dieters are also at risk of dehydration
only if they don't drink enough
> electrolyte imbalance
consume water with added electrolytes or tablets.
> low blood pressure and high uric acid, which could lead to gout or kidney stones
because?
> losing weight quickly could lead to gallstones
because?
> and thinning hair because dieters are getting the minimum amount of nutrition, which can affect hair and bone density.
not with multivit and calcium supplements.
> you're asking for justification while giving no criticism or alternative.
actually, no. you offered that quote as crit to what i said.
what's the rational way to lose weight and stay thin?
find some stuff you like to do more than eat.
what if you only like to eat?
then you have much bigger problems than not being thin.
work on your problems, try to get some interests and something worthwhile to do with your life, try to do self-improvement about some way more important issues than weight.
what bigger problems are those?
why should i have other interests?
what do you mean by worthwhile?
what are more important issues than weight?
what's wrong with being focused on solving eating problems?
why are you asking all this stuff and what will i gain by answering?
in search of new ideas for weight loss.
i don't know what you gain.
you don't gain weight. :)
in search of new ideas for weight loss.
i don't know what you gain.
you don't gain weight. :)
why do you care about weight loss a ton?
i don't like to be fat.
why?
it's ugly and uncomfortable.
i wonder if there is a way to diet like playing video games. you don't become good immediately at games. it takes persistence. you make mistakes. but your standards are high.
> i wonder if there is a way to diet like playing video games. you don't become good immediately at games. it takes persistence. you make mistakes. but your standards are high.
yes.
and one thing to think about is the *process* by which you become good. what are the characteristics of that process?
the process is evolutionary. piecemeal change. step-by-step.
not revolutionary. not radical change.
mistakes should be studied in order to convert them into a lessons-learned. most mistakes go unnoticed but you can improve your ability to catch more and more mistakes without limit. we can't reach perfection but we can do a good job.
if you eat too much, it's because you have particular habits and you're enacting them and that means you're eating too much food. these are thoughts, emotions, and actions.
most people focus on the *actions*, e.g. eating too much at a sitting, or eating when you weren't hungry. they don't think about the mental habits (thoughts and emotions) that precede the actions. it's not even on their radar.
> the process is evolutionary. piecemeal change. step-by-step.
>
> not revolutionary. not radical change.
what would be an example of piecemeal change as diet is concerned?
an idea that makes sense to me is to eat the calorie amount as if one was thin already. but maybe it's a huge jump?
one problem is that losing slow or not losing (cause the body doesn't like to lose weight and adapts to less calories) is boring and discouraging.
how do you study mistakes and how do you figure out what was the mistake?
i have noticed some people talk of compulsions to binge and that compulsion doesn't follow any logic. some say eating above 300 Kcal a day compels them to binge. others say eating below 1400 compels them to binge. some say allowing a small amount of "junk" prevents bingeing. others on the contrary, having one cookie starts a binge.
what is going on in their minds?
i think it's about ideas they have persuaded themselves of and identify with and not knowing how to change those ideas. those ideas are static memes and manifest themselves as obsessive thoughts.
> what would be an example of piecemeal change as diet is concerned?
a small change, e.g. replacing soda with water at lunch, or taking a bit smaller portions with optional seconds 30min after you finish, or a rule that whenever you finish 80% of your food then you stop for 2min and consider if you're genuinely still hungry before eating the rest.
> what would be an example of piecemeal change as diet is concerned?
you also should think about what things are not consistent with piecemeal change, e.g. doing a diet that has an inherent end date.
> one problem is that losing slow or not losing (cause the body doesn't like to lose weight and adapts to less calories) is boring and discouraging.
why is it boring and discouraging?
what mistaken thoughts do you have about that?
> a small change, e.g. replacing soda with water at lunch, or taking a bit smaller portions with optional seconds 30min after you finish, or a rule that whenever you finish 80% of your food then you stop for 2min and consider if you're genuinely still hungry before eating the rest.
that sounds really good, thanks. i was trying not to eat fries and a hamburger instead of a double cheeseburger but that was a big jump. it might be better to have small fries and stop before eating the whole bag.
i actually stop feeling hungry after eating just a little.
the problem is i then feel hungry again soon after. and if i'm working i can be 6 hours on my feet without food. and that is not compatible with respecting physical hunger cues.
i never had full sugar soda. isn't having diet soda instead of full sugar more piecemeal?
what if a person doesn't care to have meals (unless forced by work or other circumstance) and is more of an ongoing snacker?
> you also should think about what things are not consistent with piecemeal change, e.g. doing a diet that has an inherent end date.
yes, that's why my idea was to eat the tdee of the weight i want to be. it's a change forever.
>> one problem is that losing slow or not losing (cause the body doesn't like to lose weight and adapts to less calories) is boring and discouraging.
>
> why is it boring and discouraging?
it's like watching paint dry. if i'm putting the effort in restricting i want to see results.
> what mistaken thoughts do you have about that?
i don't know. i don't understand how to catch mistakes in thinking.
also thinking your advice is good for a normal person who is a bit of a glutton and overeats a little but not so much with people who already developed behaviors such as bingeing, purging, fasting.
Hunger and the enjoyment of food
Summary: If my goal is to maximize the enjoyment I get from the taste of food during my life, then hunger is a scarce resource that I need to manage.
Eating tasty food is an important part of maximizing my enjoyment of the taste of food. However, the availability of tasty food is *not* a scarce resource for me. I live in an environment of abundant tasty food that can be ready to eat in half an hour or less.
I enjoy the taste of food most when I'm hungry. However, being hungry is a limited resource: there will only be so many times in my life when I'm hungry. Eating when I'm not hungry doesn't give me nearly as much enjoyment from the food's taste as eating when I'm hungry does. Eating when I'm not hungry also has the negative effect of increasing the amount of time that passes until I am actually hungry.
Hunger is the bottleneck on enjoyable eating experiences per year.
Overeating (e.g. eating 11 times per 10 hungers) doesn't change the bottleneck. It just gets a bit more use out of the bottleneck, but it's still an amount of eating proportional to the bottleneck (and overeating has major downsides).
#13430
> Hunger is the bottleneck on enjoyable eating experiences per year.
Agreed.
> Overeating (e.g. eating 11 times per 10 hungers) doesn't change the bottleneck.
Yeah. Even if you overeat, hunger is still the bottleneck.
> It just gets a bit more use out of the bottleneck,
Your example of overeating ("eating 11 times per 10 hungers") involves eating when you are *not hungry*. If *hunger* is the bottleneck, how does that kind of overeating actually *use* the bottleneck?
> but it's still an amount of eating proportional to the bottleneck...
Possible counter-example: If you eat often enough when you are not hungry, then you will never become hungry. You will have eaten some non-zero amount of food and yet the number of times when you were hungry would be 0. In that case, I don't see how the amount eaten would be proportional to the bottleneck.
#13429 Before I had the ideas in #13429, I thought that the only significant advantage of eating only when hungry versus other eating policies was that it was both healthy and coercion-free. But if my reasoning in #13429 is correct, then eating only when hungry has an additional significant advantage: it is the *only* way to maximize my enjoyment from the taste of food. In that case, then, whenever I'm wondering whether I should eat, I should first find out whether I am hungry.
#13445
> In that case, then, whenever I'm wondering whether I should eat, I should first find out whether I am hungry.
That should be:
If maximizing my enjoyment from the taste of food is the most important thing to me about eating, then, whenever I'm wondering whether I should eat, I should first find out whether I am hungry.
How do you define maximizing the enjoyment you get from the taste of food? Do you mean total enjoyment over the course of time, or highest maximum enjoyment?
Example: You eat once in a day and are hungry so you get enjoyment 10 out of it; total enjoyment that day 10. Or you eat five times that day and are not very hungry each time so you get enjoyment 3 each time; total enjoyment that day 15.
#13453
I was aiming to maximize my total enjoyment from the taste of food over the course of time. However, I haven't been thinking in terms of *degrees* of hunger or *degrees* of tastiness. Instead, I was just treating hunger and tastiness as binary things. That is, I'm either hungry or I'm not at any given time, and any given food is either tasty or it's not. Given that, I was thinking that I would only enjoy the taste of food when all of the following are true:
- I am hungry
- The food is tasty
#13456 You may think so intellectually, and it may *very roughly* correspond to reality, but there is no way that's actually, fully what you do. IRL you do consider degrees of tastiness at least some.
Levels of tastiness and hunger
#13457
Yes, there are different levels of tastiness. For example, I regard both chocolate ice cream and frosted chocolate cupcakes as tasty, but I generally consider frosted chocolate cupcakes to be tastier than chocolate ice cream.
I think there are also different levels of hunger. I think about them in terms of what I would be willing to eat. Below are some different levels of hunger, along with some approximate names. They are listed in order of increasing hunger, except for levels 2a and 2b, which I regard as being on the same level.
- 1. Stuffed - wouldn't eat anything, no matter how delicious.
- 2a. Full of non-sweets - would only eat something tasty & sweet (see below).
- 2b. Full of sweets - would only eat something tasty & non-sweet (see below).
- 3. Normal - would only eat something tasty.
- 4. Hungry - would eat something bland or neutral, such as a plain, unsalted boiled potato or porridge without sugar.
- 5. Starving - would eat something gross, such as a worm.
Regarding levels 2a and 2b: it's as if there are two kinds of "full". I can be full from dinner but still have room for dessert. Or say I ate a lot of sweets and don't want any more sweets; there are times when I could still eat some steak.
I think level 4 is when I'm *actually* hungry. The fact that I would eat something bland is a sign that I'm not eating just for the taste. I take that as a sign that my body wants nutrition or energy.
#13461
My argument about hunger and the enjoyment of food from #13429 treated hunger and tastiness as binary. This is OK, even though hunger and tastiness actually exist in degrees or levels. Here's why:
Hunger levels higher than 4 are irrelevant to my argument, because I don't currently plan to experience them. And tastiness levels of less than the tastiest thing I currently want are also irrelevant, because I can generally, without too much trouble, find something to eat that is about that tasty. (An exception would be if it's 4am and I want something that only a certain restaurant serves, and that restaurant is closed. But if this becomes a recurring issue, I can plan around it.)
Eating when not hungry
#13461
> - 3. Normal - would only eat something tasty.
For many years now, I've done most of my eating at hunger level 3 ("normal"). I'm unclear on why. Do I enjoy the taste of food during those times? Do I enjoy something else about the experience? Or do I not enjoy the experience at all, but obtain from it a sense of relief or a distraction from something unpleasant?
Seeking answers, I've been trying to understand my experience when I eat at level 3 ("normal"). I've tentatively concluded that the food tastes good even at level 3, but it's not entirely clear. Also, I realized that eating at level 3 leads to being at hunger level 1 ("stuffed"), which is physically unpleasant.
Article about saturated fat and health
I read the first article on this page:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/saturated-fat#heart-health
Is Saturated Fat Unhealthy?
Written by Jillian Kubala, MS, RD on March 25, 2020 — Medically reviewed by Miho Hatanaka, RDN, L.D.
It’s a review of the research on saturated fat and health. I like that she gives links to research studies to support most of what she says, 37 links in total.
However, I have a criticism of one section:
> Another problem lies in focusing solely on macronutrients and not the diet as a whole. Whether or not saturated fat increases disease risk likely depends on what foods it’s being replaced with — or what it’s replacing — and overall diet quality.
>
> In other words, individual nutrients aren’t to blame for disease progression. Humans don’t consume just fat or just carbs. Rather, these macronutrients are combined through consuming foods that contain a mixture of macronutrients.
>
> What’s more, focusing exclusively on individual macronutrients rather than the diet as a whole doesn’t take into consideration the effects of dietary constituents, such as added sugars, that may negatively affect health.
>
> Lifestyle and genetic variants are important risk factors that should be considered as well, as both have been proven to affect overall health, dietary needs, and disease risk.
>
> Clearly, the effect of diet as a whole is difficult to research.
>
> For these reasons, it’s clear that larger, well-designed studies are necessary to separate associations from facts.
>
> SUMMARY
> Individual macronutrients aren’t to blame for disease progression. Rather, it’s the diet as a whole that truly matters.
It's not obvious to me that individual macronutrients aren't to blame for disease progression. Some of them could be.
The author is correct that it's difficult to figure out if a nutrient is to blame for a disease. If you do an experiment where you remove a nutrient from people's diets, then you either change their calorie consumption or you replace that nutrient with something else that may have its own effect. (You run into the same kind of problem if you add a nutrient to people's diets.)
The author is also correct that foods are eaten in combination with other foods. Those foods may interact with each other to cause effects that they wouldn’t cause on their own.
The author is also correct that there could be multiple things that affect disease, including different macronutrients with separate or combined effects, lifestyle and genetic variation.
But it could still be that one or more macronutrients do contribute to disease, just that it's difficult to do experiments to figure this out and that there may be other things that also contribute.
----
I also posted the above on my website at https://aelanwave.wordpress.com/2021/02/01/commentary-on-article-about-saturated-fat-and-health/
Comments welcome. Is my point easily understood? Do you disagree with it?
Another reason to post it here it that people might be interested in the topic.