Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:29 +0000, Steve Firth wrote:

Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

Well it's on now, I hope it turns out to be good, but I have that huge
feeling of dread :-(

On 24/01/13 21:01, Steve Firth wrote:
Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

Have it recording, it sounds great, but there's always the risk you're
right.

On 24/01/2013 21:39, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 24/01/13 21:01, Steve Firth wrote:
Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

Have it recording, it sounds great, but there's always the risk you're
right.

There is hope as for a start it is not called "Carol Vorderman's The
Genius of Invention" or "Richard Hammond's The Genius of Invention" or
similar...

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:29 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.
I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:37 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

The future is biomass and PV panels according to the collective
idiocy. The word "nuclear" in connection with sustainable electricity
generation passed not a lip. The primary presenter now makes a living
peddling diet books which apparently allow you to eat what you like.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:37 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

The future is biomass and PV panels according to the collective
idiocy. The word "nuclear" in connection with sustainable electricity
generation passed not a lip. The primary presenter now makes a living
peddling diet books which apparently allow you to eat what you like.

That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"

if it's:

no food groups are banned, then correct

if it eat as much as you like, then false

It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet

Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's not to
work?

(But I could have googled the wrong thing)

tim

On 25/01/2013 18:50, tim..... wrote:

That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"

if it's:

no food groups are banned, then correct

if it eat as much as you like, then false

It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet

Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's
not to work?

(But I could have googled the wrong thing)

tim

No. ADF (if that's what you're referring to) suggests that timing is as
least as big a factor as total calories consumed. You can consume more
calories over a week than "normal" but restricting two days to 500
calories or less, and therefore eating more the other five days,
results in weight loss and other benefits like reduced cholesterol and
increased insulin sensitivity. Lots of good evidence to back it up too.


--
Reentrant

On 26/01/2013 11:48, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/01/2013 18:50, tim..... wrote:

That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"

if it's:

no food groups are banned, then correct

if it eat as much as you like, then false

It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet

Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's
not to work?

(But I could have googled the wrong thing)

tim

No. ADF (if that's what you're referring to) suggests that timing is as
least as big a factor as total calories consumed. You can consume more
calories over a week than "normal" but restricting two days to 500
calories or less, and therefore eating more the other five days, results
in weight loss and other benefits like reduced cholesterol and increased
insulin sensitivity. Lots of good evidence to back it up too.


ADF is interesting. But the idea that a simplistic calorie count "works"
is somewhat naive.

--
Rod

"Reentrant" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2013 18:50, tim..... wrote:

That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"

if it's:

no food groups are banned, then correct

if it eat as much as you like, then false

It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet

Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's
not to work?

(But I could have googled the wrong thing)

tim

No. ADF (if that's what you're referring to) suggests that timing is as
least as big a factor as total calories consumed. You can consume more
calories over a week than "normal" but restricting two days to 500
calories or less, and therefore eating more the other five days, results
in weight loss and other benefits like reduced cholesterol and increased
insulin sensitivity. Lots of good evidence to back it up too.

I'm not saying that it is what I googed (as I didn't read it that
thoroughly).

But I thought the idea about restricting eating on some days per week was
that you didn't eat any more on the other days. (As in you naturally didn't
do so, not that specifically tried not to.) I have no idea if it works like
that or not.

tim

In message , Reentrant
writes
On 25/01/2013 18:50, tim..... wrote:

That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"

if it's:

no food groups are banned, then correct

if it eat as much as you like, then false

It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet

Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's
not to work?

(But I could have googled the wrong thing)

tim

No. ADF (if that's what you're referring to) suggests that timing is as
least as big a factor as total calories consumed. You can consume more
calories over a week than "normal" but restricting two days to 500
calories or less, and therefore eating more the other five days,
results in weight loss and other benefits like reduced cholesterol and
increased insulin sensitivity. Lots of good evidence to back it up too.

I experimented with two days fasting a week for 3 weeks

When I say fasting, I mean total fasting - nothing but water. I found no
overall net loss

I'll give it another less extreme and longer test in due course

--
geoff

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:48:34 AM UTC, Reentrant wrote:
On 25/01/2013 18:50, tim..... wrote:



That depends upon your definition of "eat what you like"



if it's:



no food groups are banned, then correct



if it eat as much as you like, then false



It (seems to be) a simple calorie controlled diet



Eat what you like up to a maximum number of calories per day. What's

not to work?



(But I could have googled the wrong thing)



tim



No. ADF (if that's what you're referring to) suggests that timing is as

least as big a factor as total calories consumed.



I still don;t understand why only calories are counted.
if that's all that is required then I have todays meals 'sorted'
I have a 16 multi-pak bag of crips, 133Cal per bag that's 2128 just enough left over for a pint or two or three.... of beer.




You can consume more

calories over a week than "normal" but restricting two days to 500

calories or less, and therefore eating more the other five days,

results in weight loss and other benefits like reduced cholesterol and

increased insulin sensitivity. Lots of good evidence to back it up too.





--

Reentrant

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.

That's exactly what I though as it started when they said something
like:
Fred: I'm Fred, this is Jim
Jim: Hello!
Fred: and this is Sheila
Sheila: Hello!

JGH

In article ,
jgharston wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.

That's exactly what I though as it started when they said something
like:
Fred: I'm Fred, this is Jim
Jim: Hello!
Fred: and this is Sheila
Sheila: Hello!

I turned off when "nerdy but nice" started wafting the tablet thing
about to get stuff to move on the big display behind her...

Seriously? Nerdy but nice? WTF?!?

Gordon

I turned off when "nerdy but nice" started wafting the tablet thing
about to get stuff to move on the big display behind her...

Seriously? Nerdy but nice? WTF?!?

Gordon


Surely things are only real if they are on an iPad!

The best bit was seeing the turbines as a backdrop.

On 25/01/2013 13:35, DerbyBorn wrote:

I turned off when "nerdy but nice" started wafting the tablet thing
about to get stuff to move on the big display behind her...

Seriously? Nerdy but nice? WTF?!?

Gordon


Surely things are only real if they are on an iPad!

The best bit was seeing the turbines as a backdrop.

Yes, nice to see some real hardware.

I didn't know that James Watt came to the subject by having a model of a
Newcomen engine to mend.

And the models and the oil drum experiment weren't bad.

Gordon Henderson wrote:
I turned off when "nerdy but nice" started wafting the tablet thing
about to get stuff to move on the big display behind her...

I kept thinking: hold your b***y clipboard properly! For several
hundred years we've had a perfectly good design for a hold-in-you-hand-
and-scribble-on-it object, and what happens, Steve Jobs thinks he can
do better and forces people to balance things on their palms.

JGH

On 25/01/2013 12:29, Gordon Henderson wrote:

I turned off when "nerdy but nice" started wafting the tablet thing
about to get stuff to move on the big display behind her...

Seriously? Nerdy but nice? WTF?!?


Something was very wrong with her presentation style. I found her
reaction to the oil demonstration to be very false when pretending that
she didn't know what was going to happen. Perhaps she missed the
rehearsal but she was aware, without prompting, to stand well away.

She has probably been on a 'medja presenters' course and taught to be a
proxy for the thicko members of the public that are watching.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:37 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:29 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.
I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

The whole program seemed to be based on the premise of everything
being "so big!"

Apellation Controlee wrote:

The whole program seemed to be based on the premise of everything
being "so big!"

They did at least credit light bulbs to "Swan & Edison" rather than just
"Edison"

Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:37 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:29 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.
I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

The whole program seemed to be based on the premise of everything
being "so big!"

I got tired of being told that the alternator has to spin at 3000 rpm. That
only needs to be said once.

The models and demos had been done better in the past by Adam Hart-Davis
and Jim Al-Khalili.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Apellation Controlee wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:37 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:01:29 +0000, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.

I missed the beginning, watched it for three minutes near the end, but
revulsion at the presenters drove me away, especially that Blue
Peterised woman.
I had to check the clock to see if it was actually post 9pm, as I was
sure this was misplaced kids' TV.

The whole program seemed to be based on the premise of everything
being "so big!"

I got tired of being told that the alternator has to spin at 3000 rpm.
That
only needs to be said once.

It needs to be said more than once for the stupids who missed
it the first time.

The models and demos had been done better in the past by Adam Hart-Davis
and Jim Al-Khalili.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
[snip]

It needs to be said more than once for the stupids who missed
it the first time.

A British audience doesn't need repetition. The inbred retards where you
live still won't get it after the hundredth repetition.

Here's a list of Australian contributions to science and technology.

[start list]
[end list]

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 27/01/2013 18:45, Steve Firth wrote:


I got tired of being told that the alternator has to spin at 3000 rpm. That
only needs to be said once.

Did they even mention the direct link with 50Hz mains frequency?
Maybe I missed it. 3000 rpm was indeed mentioned several times.


--
Reentrant

Reentrant wrote:
On 27/01/2013 18:45, Steve Firth wrote:


I got tired of being told that the alternator has to spin at 3000 rpm. That
only needs to be said once.

Did they even mention the direct link with 50Hz mains frequency?
Maybe I missed it. 3000 rpm was indeed mentioned several times.

No, they mentioned that 3000rpm is 50rps but didn't bother to mention the
link to mains frequency. No mention of three phases either. And why stop
Discussion of steam engines with Watt? Why no mention of triple expansion
engines linking that to turbines?

In short very little information thinly smeared over an hour, because BBC
producers think everyone is as thick as they are.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Steve Firth wrote:
Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.


Patronising waffle.

Tim

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
Steve Firth wrote:
Hmmm,

Anyone else regarding this with a mix of hope and dread? Has the
potential to be good, but will probably consist of an hour of
patronising waffle.


Patronising waffle.

I thought actually showing us models of how the things worked was useful.

I have never been able to work that out for myself.

tim