ectogemia

I'm at the point where I can fade out the track or keep on keepin' on to make it a really epic tune. Decisions, decisions... It's a cool one can't wait to share it.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. I started doing this a month or so ago per Flexstyle's advice. I can't even begin to describe how effective of a mixing approach this is.

Guess which game I used to speedrun, Pete.

British guy + one line reply = sarcastic intent I'm onto you.

Look what Ben Briggs hath wrought upon us all. I can't wait til I can watch someone write music at literally any time of the day. That's quality television. I mean it.

I definitely optimize. You've got me figured out. But I've done it the "normal" way, and I thought I felt "good". Then I had an epiphany while thinking about cat food ("why would I ever want to feed my carnivore cat grain-based foodOHMYGOD WHY WOULD I WANT TO FEED MYSELF GRAIN?"), read many hundreds of studies, did it the with an evolutionary approach, and that's when I discovered what feeling "good" REALLY means. You also can't forget that Bruce Lee and Jack LaLane were genetic mutants, as is Arnold. They would have had extraordinary physiques doing just about anything, but if they had really treated themselves optimally, they would have been truly out of this world.

You and I agree, then. I speak in ideals in this thread, yes, but what's the point of living in modern society if you don't indulge in it once in a while? Grass-fed ice cream and a nice, quality, deep-dish pizza are my vices. Common sense (evolutionary approach) is the lens through which you should analyze all nutritional info. Humans *did not* evolve to eat grains. Birds and insects did. Cows did not, pigs did not, etc. Gar, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to read your links. I really don't mean to be a dick in not doing so and I'm not trying to poop on your efforts to make a counterargument, but they are not primary sources/studies, and some are from sites which I do not trust. I DO happen to work in the health care field, I'm going to be a doctor pretty damn soon, and I'm very current on the nutrition and biochemistry literature. I'm telling you, these layperson sites are ancient history and often outright wrong. One example? The Mayo Clinic's page on saturated fat has ZERO primary resources cited in it. FROM THE PREMIER CLINIC ON THE PLANET. Their page would have been an F in any undergrad lab class. And this is the sort of info that things like WebMD and especially the garbage site, Livestrong, proffer. I actually remember checking out one of Livestrong's sources for their claim that saturated fat makes you fat. The source itself said that saturated fat is a good dietary choice for fat-loss diets because it does not mobilize insulin. WTF, Livestrong... Also, Gar, no... high fiber does NOT "plug you up." It causes diarrhea. That's biology 101, simple osmosis (facilitated diffusion, actually). Lots of polar molecules in your intestines = intestinal hydrophilia = watery stool. I do not care what WebMD or whatever other shill site has to say about that. They're quite often just plain wrong.

But only take this approach if you're a Brit.

It is harder for newbs to get involved in things because they're new. No one knows them and their talent(s) yet. So start showing off! I participated in several compos and improved VASTLY as a result. People started to take notice of my music, and now I've been asked to be on several album projects, both remix and original. So that definitely helped. Another way is to go onto the workshop forum and provide feedback for peoples' remixes. Getting to know some people on the forum and then chatting with them via facebook, skype, email, etc. worked for me, too. I've made a ton of e-friends on here who have become real life friends, and that's just the shit. A lot of people hang out in the mIRC channel, but I haven't spent a lot of time in there. And don't forget that you're from Indy which hosts a ton of OCRfolk!

Moderate fiber aids in pooping for some. I poop fine with and without it. High fiber intake actually causes diarrhea. Fiber is an undigestible (by humans) sugar which, like all sugars, attracts water. Too much fiber in the large intestine will draw water from the surrounding tissue space back into the large intestine and cause diarrhea, the opposite of its advertised (and I use this word very, very intentionally) effect. Fiber also causes bloating, as it's a FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-, and/or polysaccharide). Your intestinal flora (bacteria, yeast, and fungus) will snatch up this indigestible fiber to some degree and ferment it, releasing gases into your GI tract. Not comfortable, and its also not good for the functioning of your intestines over the long haul.

I'm not clear on the fiber thing. Never have been, and I suspect there's a reason... Can you explain to me the biological mechanisms whereby fiber aids in weight loss and also in general health? If you can, you would likely be a candidate for a Nobel prize down the road. No one yet has been able to do so. Correlational/epidemiological studies are NOT to be trusted without further investigation into the biological mechanism underlying the studied variables. The reduction in maritime piracy over the past 2 centuries has been strongly positively correlated to the increase in the average global temperature. Does that mean the death of piracy caused global warming? Think about that when you see studies which speak of things like "correlations" or "risk factors". edit: The only aspect of fiber which could aid in weight loss is the modulation of the absorption rate of dietary carbohydrates, but if you're eating a low-carb diet as Thin Crust is, this is a moot point. < 20 g of carbs per week? Fuck that. Shoot for < 20 g of carbs per DAY for rapid weight loss. < 50 g per day will probably even lead to great results. <10 g of carbs per day is considered a "zero carb" diet. < 20 g / week will become counterproductive once your cortisol catches up to the stress of constant ketosis. There is nothing wrong with eating grass-fed beef every single day. I will defend this with studies to my death, and I will be eternally exasperated by those who contradict me without little blue links to support their claims.

The fast is an excellent idea, but I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your information from. It's false. Those basal metabolic rate calculators are silly, too. You have no idea what your basal thyroxine is unless you get a blood test. I'd like to hear from you what it is exactly about poultry that's superior to red meat in terms of weight loss (notwithstanding its inferior nutritional content). Hard mode: do this without using the word "calories" (e.g. calories are not terribly important with respect to weight loss for the AVERAGE person if your insulin and leptin are kept under tight control).

It's protein and not protien because of the Romantic derivation of the word. "ein" sorta means "material of" and "prot" sorta means "first" or "before". So the name basically means "first material [of life]", although that description is sorta antiquated. It's technically not even pronounced "PRO-teen". It's really "PRO-tee-in". Every other word in biology ending in "ein" tends to be pronounced like the latter, but for some reason, protein gets a bye. Her advice was sound, though general, and to be totally frank, my mind is blown she didn't give you shitty advice. As I've been saying all along, eat fewer carbohydrates to reduce insulin (the hormone primarily responsible for stored fat retention). Protein is the molecule primarily responsible for satiety. If you eat a low carb, high protein diet, you WILL lose weight because A) you'll have a lower average insulin secretion which means your fat cells will release stored fat more readily and you should never be hungry because of the positive effects of protein on satiety and C) because you will be eating fewer carbs and secreting less insulin, your blood sugar will be better maintained, resulting in less hunger. Now's the time to forget everything you've ever heard about fat because most of it is wrong. Eat meat, mostly red, ideally grass-fed and grass-finished (probably will have to source this from a local farmers' market). Fish is excellent, but not very filling. Poultry is ok, I guess, but it's also not very filling, and the high omega 6 content is a concern for frequent consumption.

I find a pancreas cake to be the most ironic, self-hating food that exists.

Have a-cute birthday, Jason. (because you had acute pancreatitis)

I agree so much with this, but at the same time, it has REALLY driven improvements in my game. For instance, my production compared to what it was a year ago is utterly night-and-day. So there's that positive aspect to it, but yes, it has definitely screwed up my output. But what I do create is sounding better and better. I just hope one day that I hit the point where I'm satisfied enough not to have those crippling hesitations that make me unproductive now.

Well, in order for anyone to win, Jason has to not be dead. What's the status on your vitality, Jason? Living? Dead?

Ooooo, 1 minute in, and this is sounding excellent! (bring your A game)

Let me know what recommendations she makes.

I'm sick of working on the tunes I've got going on right now. Time to give this a shot.

I read the DJP Manifesto - 2013. Look like we sing the same tune. I especially loved those quotes at the end. The sexes should be regarded equally but our innate differences should be embraced, and the complementarity manifested within those differences is something to celebrate. How many of us are so stupid as to actually regard women or men as they are depicted in popular media? Some people, for sure, but most of us trust our own experiences in reality with the other gender, I reckon. Does anyone here really believe that creating some bland, inoffensive, homogenized representation of the sexes in video games or whatever would change how one gender sees the other? It certainly wouldn't affect my perception because I have a mind with the ability to think critically about what I see and assess its validity based upon what I know. And can someone tell me exactly what it is that's wrong with a female character with big tits or a male character with big muscles? Those are things that, like, actually are on women or men. I understand that the backlash comes from essentially ALL current games having big-boobied women and jacked-out men, but if the feminist agenda were to come to fruition and some normative bodies were used for character models in most games, what do you think the reaction would be to a character designer deviating and creating, say, a chesty female character? Is this an issue with designing ALL characters around exaggerated aspects of gender-specific anatomy, or is it with designing ANY characters AT ALL as such? I certainly hope no one wants things to tend towards the latter... I think you surrendered the right to make that demand when you decided to make several thousand consecutive stupid and offensive posts. I'm not trying to stir the shit pot here necessarily, but zircon, you did work on this game, and by your definition, it's pretty damn sexist. Is there any internal conflict with you being associated with a game which has contents you find to be morally objectionable? Also, I may be totally misassessing your stance on the sexes. This thread is 230984 pages, after all, and I've only the most recent 10 posts

Book 1 was VERY closely adapted in the HBO series. Book 2 made a ton of puzzling divergences. Book 3 is the best book I have ever read.* If only because you can only experience the story once without knowing what happens in the other film/literature iteration, I would read the books through the third book, A Storm of Swords. I can't imagine the HBO series will pull off any better what GRRM did in that book. *ever