12 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. The question is what sort of calories are we eating. I would suggest everyone goes and reads Gary Taubes. And the war time ration would be exactly what he claims is bad for you – too many carbohydrates, too much sugar, not enough meat.

    A diet of potatoes and fish probably requires a great deal of calories as compared to, say, beef steak.

    Cooking would also make a difference. It is hard to eat enough raw vegetables to make up for the costs of digesting them.

    In the meantime I am feeling a little traumatised by Keith Hudson’s comment over in the other place:

    Our faeces contain far too much surplus proteins.

    That sort of thing ought to come with a trigger warning.

  2. If his faeces contain too much protein then he isn’t digesting them as they pass by. So they’re not contributing to weight gain. Probably a bi-product of his overwhelming need to spout shit. Digestion can’t keep up with the throughput.

  3. Sailors in Nelson’s navy were issued 5,000 calories/day, but then spent it hauling on ropes. As a kid I ate boxes of wagon wheels and drank gallons of Tizer – more sugar than I care to remember, to little effect, thanks primarily to physical activity. Then years ago I landed a desk job and ballooned from ten to fourteen stone. It was a long struggle back. Whilst I still eat chocolate and sticky buns, a daily diet of 2,500 calories would have me back in the Billy Bunter class within six months. Years of experience lead me to support Tim’s conjecture.

  4. Some people during the war were ‘well rounded’ – Bessie Braddock, Stalin, Churchill and I think Nye Bevan , Roosavelt etc.
    Well rounded who sleep well o nights. -or somesuch

  5. b(n)is: Digestion can’t keep up with the throughput.
    Yes – probably a big part of the problem.
    Tim – perhaps nothing you can do about it, but an “ignore” button over at ASI would be a value-added feature. Even scrolling through that much tripe is off-putting. Never have so many column-inches (or screen-inches) held so few thoughts.

  6. My own comments in reply to Mr Hudson earned me a bollocking from the ASI chap in charge of the blog. Other people than myself seem to be better at ignoring him when he is at his most obtuse.

  7. earned me a bollocking from the ASI chap in charge of the blog
    Really? Wow!
    I didn’t see anything offensive (and I wonder what they had to say to Nullius in Verba?). To the extent the ASI is interested in attracting readers (and possibly contributions)… Well, Mr Hudson is not helpful.

  8. dcardno
    They deleted the ad hominem ones and sent me an email.
    For example, in one of his posts he used the line “let me give you a clue”, which I quoted back with the comment “ah, if only you had one to give”. That went.
    Apparently they regard him as a valuable contributor.

  9. Hudson’s rants at the ASI are about as edifying as those bot-generated things that purport to tell you how you can make $7000 a month on the Internet working from home. The signal to noise ratio of the comments section is about -3dB at the moment. God forbid he ever stumbles into this joint.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.