The Online Photographer

The Dying Minister Picture

Photo by Jachin Mandeno

"Here we see a terminally ill minister (left) and a church elder discussing with church members the future of the church: what will happen when the minister is deceased? The minister was shorn by chemotherapy; and the elder shaved his head in solidarity. This photo was made in 2010."

I'd just like to make a point in passing here, because this picture (from our recent contest) serves as such a perfect example of the point. A few people contacted me wondering why this picture had been featured. They said they felt it didn't offer them anything photographically. They felt it didn't have enough visual appeal. For them it was "just a snapshot."

They're right, in a way. It's not a treat for the eye. It has no visual drama. It's competently composed, but in appearance it reads like a record shot. There's nothing remarkable about it technically. There's nothing special about the lighting, which is flat and bland. The colors aren't rich or harmonious. And it certainly doesn't "stand alone," or "speak for itself," which some people feel all photographs should; if you were told it showed two middle managers giving a PowerPoint presentation at a sales meeting, you could believe it.

It does have a nice gesture, and that is a visual feature.

The caption explains what the picture does offer the viewer. It explains briefly what we're seeing: a dying or doomed man, who has an open and accepting expression; another man looking on with friendly admiration, smiling, probably at something that was just said. We're told the topic of conversation, the roles of the two persons, the reason for the meeting. We glean a few details—he wears rings on both hands, one of which is probably a wedding band. The microphones indicate either a large gathering or that they're being recorded. We're told a great deal about the situation but we're left to infer a great deal more. What we're left to imagine is the congregation's feeling toward their minister (I imagine I see it reflected in the Elder's expression; I admit I intuit that the minister was popular, even beloved, even though that information isn't provided visually or verbally—that is, it might be my own fantasy projected on the picture); we try to imagine the Minister's own feelings, which we search his face to read, the signs perhaps of fear, perhaps of bravery and acceptance and faith, perhaps of concern for his congregants—some of whom might be imagined to be friends rallying around him for support in his time of need. We certainly imagine this: what is it like to talk about your own impending death?

The picture is nothing special as a picture, except in its meaning...and that's how the picture is rich, very rich...almost...profound. It doesn't have much for the eye, I admit. But there's a great deal in it to think about. There's emotion in it. The human condition is very close by: it leads easily to thoughts about life and death, community, religious faith, the relationships that a church can foster, mutual caring, dealing with disease, and tragedy.

And of course it is a very dramatic picture. It's just not visual drama.

Different things are accepted and popular at different times. If something is widely popular and widely accepted, it often becomes part of the cultural background fabric—the shared assumptions that we seldom question or even notice. These days, for instance, that a photograph should be beautiful and colorful and technically adroit and so forth are all accepted values. That a photo should have meaning...not as much; at this point in time, for whatever reason, we don't really seem to care about the meanings of pictures all that much. If the other valued elements we expect to see are not present, meaning can even be overlooked sometimes.

I just wanted to point out to those who look at this picture and think, "well, it's not very much as a photograph," now you know how I feel when I look at ravishingly gorgeous, richly colored, technically perfect digital confections that are devoid of even a scrap of meaning. Other people see perfection, a visual treat; but part of what I see is the void—what's missing—the lack of meaning, of substance to engage the mind and the heart. When I look at a scenic or a perfectly rendered leaf or whatever, I often feel the same way the people who saw nothing in this picture felt; I have the same complaint: there's not quite enough there for me. When a picture does have meaning, I'm more tolerant of its other failings, which seem less important in the balance.

I'm not saying one's better than the other, really. We all have probably taken plain pictures with deep meaning, and we all have probably taken pretty pictures that don't mean much. But to me it's very important to bear in mind that a photograph can offer a whole lot despite being nondescript in its purely visual aspects. And still be very worthwhile as a photograph, worthy of our thought, attention, and honor.

Mike

ADDENDUM: It's come to my attention that some people are under the mistaken impression that this picture is the winner of the contest! The possibility of that confusion never occurred to me. This was not one of the six finalists, which were discussed below. This is a picture from the contest that I wanted to make a point about for purposes of discussion. I have several others I also want to talk about eventually. Just to be clear, this is not the winner of the contest. The winners haven't been chosen yet. —Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

George LeChat: "How do you know it's not two middle managers at a sales meeting?"

Mike replies: Because the photographer said so. In terms of veracity, a photograph is like a statement: we believe the person, not the picture. That's always the case, to some degree. We have to accept what we're told, or not, based on the same complex evaluations we always have to bring to bear on statements from others.

Plus, I admit (given what I'm doing here, writing in public in a quasi-journalistic mode) I checked the photographer's website, learned the minister's name, Googled him, etc. That's S.O.P. for me here at TOP, for the most part. Can't check everything. Can check a few things.

Ilkku: "One picture is worth thousand words. But a few words can completely change the meaning of a picture. So what is mightier, picture or words?"

Mike replies: First of all, that's a hoary, trivial, trite cliché to which I in no way subscribe. But I'd say what's mightier is the ongoing cognizance that there can be real facts and real truth behind both words and photographs. It isn't the words or the photographs that matter so much per se. If you accept that that photograph is an actual photograph, and shows what it appears to show (I mean two seated men, a computer, two microphones, flowers in the background, etc.), then there is some story behind it. It wasn't conjured out of imagination or fantasy. So, what's going on? Where are we? Who are the people in the picture? What's the situation? What clues do we have? Approaching all photographs that way is simply an essential element of "getting" photography. We almost never know the whole story behind any photograph. We often know enough to move us or make us think or feel.

Sometimes, of course, it's just a fucking cloud. (A quote from a friend after a lecture about Stieglitz's "equivalents.")

Rodger Kingston: "The rejection slip with which Alfred Stieglitz famously responded to many of the submissions he received at An American Place, his New York gallery, read 'Technically perfect, pictorially rotten.'"

Tim: "Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. You've answered a couple of things I've wondered for years, on and off: how does one go about 'reading' a photo and what's a reasonable deduction, and how does that fit into other, popular, genres? Well now I know; I was thinking 'so saturated landscapes on 500px are lacking this degree of story' before I got to the last couple of paragraphs. Or maybe one needs to be a rockologist to extract value from them, perhaps?"

Mike replies: Funny you should choose that example. A number of years ago I published in a magazine a photograph of a geological detail, that showed a whorled and jagged pattern in a rock face. The photographer had titled it something like "a heraldic crest" or some other such allegorical naming based upon something he thought it kinda resembled. And a reader who was a geologist wrote a letter to the magazine explaining in fascinating detail the actual significance of the geological feature, what it meant, where it probably was, how it was formed, etc. It made the photograph no less beautiful but much more interesting. That's a perfect example of what I mean when I say there are facts behind most photographs whether you know them or not. It's why I lack patience with photographers who seem to pursue common, simple, generic pictorial notions seemingly without a speck of curiosity about the reality of the subjects their pictures show.

Ed (partial comment): "I still disagree, Mike. Without a caption the photograph is unremarkable. The caption lets us (you) write our own story. This article affected me more than the picture ever could, or will, if anything the point here is underling the necessity of a good caption when the photograph isn't record enough."

Mike replies: Note that I'm not claiming this is a great photograph. Maybe it's not even a "good"one. (It didn't make the finals in our contest.) What I'm claiming is that it has meaning, and that that is a dimension lacking in many photographs routinely accepted as being "good."

Jeff Hohner: "Moved to tears by your exegesis. Thank you, and thanks for making this important point. This is why TOP is one of my few regular reads."

Jon Bloom: "Apropos of how captioning can alter a meaning of a photo, there is this. So a caption can remove meaning from a photo, or change it, as well as add it."

Reminder

Just a brief reminder that due to some pressing family concerns, I'm forced to shut the site down for a few days starting on Saturday. Very sorry....

—Mike

'Here Far Away' by Pentti Sammallahti

Here Far Away is finally showing up as "in stock" at Amazon U.K., which gets the earliest deliveries (apparently they've been working through their back-orders for several days). Meanwhile, reports are filtering through that people are getting "Your book has been shipped" notices and there have even been some deliveries of longstanding backorders.

Although Amazon U.S. is still saying "Usually ships in 1 to 3 months," people with backorders are getting email notices saying their books will ship as early as September 10th. Here's that link.

I've asked Dewi about the size of the second edition and will report back if I get a reply.

Mike
(Thanks to many readers)

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Geoff Morgan: "My copy arrived from Amazon (U.K.) today, exactly eight months after the order was placed."

'People Working' Contest: The Finalists

Photo by Peter Brian Schafer

Judge's comment: When I did the first run-through of the contest entries, "Dahiana" was not one that I thought would make the list of finalists: my first choices were based on more formal qualities. As the number of possible finalists dwindled, though, it became apparent that "Dahiana" packed in qualities that many of the other photos lacked. That is, you could tell endless stories based on this one shot: about women, about men, about sex and its symbolisms (the pushed-up breasts, the "access" zipper on the bikini bottom), about commerce, about work, and about grace and beauty. This photo is not one for formal analysis (although I could spend some time on the missing head, which both objectifies and universalizes the body) but has immeasurable philosophical and psychological depth. I also like the frontality of it: the photographer is there, doing something that is hard, and there's no chance involved. This is tough stuff.

-

Photo by Nigel Robinson

Judge's comment: This contest asked for photos on the subject of work, and none of the entries said "work" more definitively than this one—two big guys caught in the act of doing the roughest kind of job. Formally, the curve of the curb and paving stones, echoed by the curve of the hose, help focus the eye on the two main characters, and the exact point of the work being done. The stones, bricks and rubble add a variety of textures to the mix. Values range from near-white to near-black, with everything in between. And, of course, there's a touch of humor and humanity: do jackhammerers have to be, um, "husky" guys? Maybe not, but you'll see few of them who aren't.

-

Photo by Patrick Dodds

Judge's comment: This photo incorporates all the good qualities of a fine photograph: the composition is excellent, the colors are harmonious, the focus is precise, the accents (the magenta chairs) are fine, and the action is crisp and caught at exactly the right moment—the actor has one foot in the air, reminiscent of Henri Cartier-Bresson’s photo of a man caught jumping a puddle. "Vincent Manna" also captures exactly what the man is doing: working through a script with great concentration. This is a shot that could have been painstakingly composed by a painter, getting each element just right. In my mind, this was the most sophisticated color shot of the contest, except for one that didn’t make the finals.

-

Photo by Carl Wilson

Judge's comment: There's no work being done, but these are guys who work, and everything says so: their faces, their clothing, their attitudes, even the truck behind them. And they reflect the toughness of their jobs: they're dirty, they're rumpled, they're a little beat-up. But: it would be easy to take a photo like this that's just a snapshot. This one captures a good-humored moment, and even though the photo itself seems, at first glance, to be a little rumpled, it's actually quite precise, in formal terms: the two biggest guys are on the ends, framing the others, while the two smaller guys, in the center, form an overlapping unit, and actually seem to be telling us a story. A funny one. As with the jackhammerers photo, the range of values goes from near-black to nearly blown white, and all the values in between. Okay, this is silly: are the truck's mirrors "quotation marks?"

-

Photo by Sherrie Larimore

Judge's comment: This made the finals because it is an excellent and non-obvious street shot. Some shots simply demand to be taken—with this one, you had to be looking with a photographer's eye. There was some luck involved: the colors are exceptionally good, and the reflections add a nice abstract element. But the framing and positioning of the two men, along with the barber's gesture, make the photo, and pushing the button just then...that wasn't luck. A lot of formal qualities with a nice touch of humanity. The barber's saying something like, "No, the Cubs don't suck...."

-

Photo by Dave Levingston

Judge's comment: Not much to say about this one: everything is right there in the photograph. This is a man working at a nasty job, and his whole stance, dress and expression feeds that right back to you. This has a powerful serio-comic impact: you can't help think of Woody Allen, but you also can't help thinking of Arnold Newman and the Alfried Krupp photograph. This photograph is about the meaning of work, in all of its complexities—some sad meanings, some bad ones, some funny, some just tiresome. Work like this is like pushing a boulder up a mountain: boring, tedious, discouraging. The Turkey Man takes all of that to the nth degree.

-

[The judge prefers to remain anonymous. —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and The Online Photographer. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

William Barnett-Lewis: "I did not post earlier, as I felt others had said anything I felt well enough.

"In the end, my own criteria for judging something like this is simple enough—what picture would I be most proud of having taken and hang a print on my wall? From that perspective, Turkey Man leads by a long margin. Having grown up on a small farm tending the family's birds, I can empathize with him and with the turkeys that would grace that fall's holiday tables. There is a certain honesty in the work and in the way that it is captured in the shades of white, grey and black. Finally it is an image that would not work in color—the actual colors would wash out and dilute the meaning of the image.

"Similarly, the Actor is an image that I do not think would have worked in black and white and, as a result, is my 'winner' of the colored images. The judge makes all the important technical comments above; all I wish to add is that belief that it's the only image of the finalists that requires color to work; the other two could be converted and continue to work just as well if not better (the Bikini).

"Thank you, all of you, for some fascinating images."

David Miller: "My commendations to the judge for perceptive and articulate comments. The judge's response to The Turkey Man, however, reminded me how much our reaction to a work of art is a comment on us and not on the work itself. I suspect the judge is an urban person (or, if rural, escaped the farm with a sigh of relief). Having myself been a farm labourer, a construction worker, and an actor, I see nothing 'boring, tedious, discouraging' in the Turkey Man's work. I recall, instead, my Dad's laconic comment about life as a farmer: 'No matter what else was going on, I always knew I was producing food for people to eat.' Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder."

Jim Simmons: "I got my prize before the finalists were announced—comments that showed kind, insightful appreciation of my Funeral Guys. Thanks to Mike for giving the images an audience and all of us a forum for viewing and discussion."

They're Here! The 'Lens-Style' Cameras

Surely no one can argue that Sony is not innovating lately. The super-cheap A3000 that ships this week, the SLT pellicle-mirror cameras, the world's smallest full-frame camera—you almost get the impression that Sony's camera division is a dynamic small start-up couched inside a large, staid old corporation. Meaning—a dynamic small start-up with lots of cash.

And surely the most "out there" of Sony's recent ideas is what is apparently to be called the "Lens Style" camera. They're small lens and sensor units not unlike the modules of the Ricoh GXR, but, instead of affixing them to a dedicated body shell, you clip them to your smartphone. Camera module and smartphone then interact wirelessly via an app. Up to and including the ability to edit and share photos instantly.

So for you double early adopters, they're here—the QX100 and QX10 are now available for pre-order. (I say "double" early adopters because you have to not only want to be the first to have a new camera, but the first to try out a new camera idea. An intrepid group indeed—not just mountain climbers, but the first to attempt the mountain.) And the price seems to be right: note that the QX100 has the same lens and sensor as the popular RX100II but costs $250 less. (What's this? Less for less? Clearly that company has not mastered modern marketing.)

I personally tend to be an ultra-late adopter (I bought my A900 just as it was being discontinued!), as well as a card-carrying member of the cellphone resistance (I might not even have one if it weren't for its usefulness as a texting walkie-talkie with my son, and for Siri's stellar car-navigating abilities), and I'm pretty sure the Lens-Style cameras are targeted at mobile-device fans and people who are primarily social-media aficionados.

But as devices they're pretty cool and as a trend it promises to be entertaining to keep an eye on. Sony Alpha Rumors is already reporting what it calls the "almost certainly correct" rumor that the two QX modules are already the most heavily pre-ordered Sony digital camera products ever in Asia, Europe, and North America.

And in case you're wondering what Sony might be cooking up next: rumor has it that Sony's working on a successor to the Contax AX that focuses the lens in the body by moving the sensor plane forward and back. Advantages: no moving parts needed in the lenses, and the new camera might be easily adapted to lenses from other makers.

Mike
 

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kevin Purcell: "The QX100 has the same lens and sensor as the RX100II, but doesn't support RAW. I can see this sort of camera being useful for street photography. I'm sure someone's going to put it to creative use, but without RAW it's much less interesting."

Dan Gorman: "I've never been an early adopter either, but I gotta say, I am more than intrigued by this thing. I probably wouldn't buy one until they build in RAW shooting and focus peaking (or similar focusing aid), but it's a category I'll be watching with interest for sure. I hope enough people buy it to keep new models coming. All that said, it's still about the pictures. Gadgets are cool and fun, but will this gadget help you make better pictures? I'll look forward to finding out!"

Mick Ryan: "It's interesting but I don't really see any innovation here, I just see gimmickry. It seems counter-productive to me to produce a bulky add-on for a phone camera the ubiquity and success of which is the very fact that it is inside your slim phone which you (most of us anyway) always have with you. You might as well just carry an extra pocket camera with you."

T Bannor: "I'm not sure I see the point. If you're going to carry an additional item to your mobile phone, why not just get an RX100 II, which is probably easier to carry than these round things. You can still control it from your phone with Sony's app."

Bad Science vs. Good Science: A Guide for the Layperson (Part 1)

This week's column by Ctein

It's Column 300 (best as I can count), and as is my tradition I'm going off-topic into the realm of science. This time I'm going meta, but that will probably be of more practical value to most of you than most of my science columns.

As a layperson, how can you distinguish Good Science from Bad Science? If one source of information says "X" and another "not-X" how do you decide which one to believe when it's not a discipline that you know well enough to be able to evaluate on scientific merits? There are tools that'll let you make the right decision almost every time.

Please understand that "good" and "bad" aren't the same as "right" and "wrong." Bad science is almost always wrong, at least 99% of the time, so it's good to be able to sniff it out. But, on occasion, it proves correct. There are a few historical examples (Newton's theory of gravitation). Conversely, Good Science, while usually right, is regularly proven wrong (last year's report of faster-than-light neutrinos); that's part of the point of science. Picking the Good Science doesn't guarantee that you're correct, but picking the Bad Science almost always guarantees that you're not.

Neither Good nor Bad Science can tell you what is true. General relativity and quantum mechanics are Good Science. Are they actually true? We have no idea. Given the history of science, probably not. But they're correct enough, as demonstrated by your GPS (which makes use of GR), and your personal computers and electronics (which depend on QM).

Hundreds of you will be offended by these columns. Why? Because if some percentage of the population didn't believe in all kinds of Bad Science, there'd be no reason for me to be writing these columns. Let's imagine, optimistically, that it's only 1% of the TOP readership. Usually it's a lot higher. TOP has a readership measured in the five figures. You can do the math.

Should you feel compelled to write a fervent rebuttal to my branding your pet belief as Bad Science, Mike will happily publish your comment...so long as it is reasonably concise, not merely a political or religious rant (verboten topics, sez our Ed), and does not personally attack or insult anyone, including moi (no ad hominem). I will likely not respond to your rebuttal. That doesn't mean I will agree with you, only that I will not go out of my way to prove you wrong nor read some website that you're convinced will prove you're right. It's not my job nor my interest to tackle every bit of nonsense or bad information in the world.

Now, on with the show!

First, get as close to the source as possible. The more expertise your informant has, the closer they are to the research, the more likely they are to know what's good. If some columnist at Forbes or the Wall Street Journal says there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming and the editors of Science and Nature say there is, whom do you think really knows more about the science? C'mon, really. If Science and Nature are too dense for you to deal with, read Science News. It writes about science for the lay audience. It's not a primary source like Science and Nature, but it's a very, very close secondary source, written by people who actually have expertise.

Related to that, be suspicious when scientists step far outside their field of expertise and report unusual results. A lot of good scientists do Bad Science when they move into a discipline they're unfamiliar with, because it's a tricky thing getting experiments right. I'm a good enough experimental physicist; I wouldn't trust me to be able to run a good medical biology experiment.

Cold fusion's a good example. The discoverers knew so little physics that they didn't even know how to run some of their instruments correctly. They made some freshmen-level mistakes that were blatantly obvious to anyone who was minimally experienced with the equipment.

Next, consider the process. Did your informants submit papers for peer review? Did they get published in reputable and well-established journals or websites? If they're "taking it to the people" before doing any of that, that's a caution. Bad process usually means Bad Science. Again, see cold fusion.

Take a look at the scientific trend lines; these are really good indicators. All scientific theories and hypotheses, good or bad, start off with just a few adherents. Most of them, if they're not completely insane, rapidly acquire a fair percentage of followers because scientists collectively are open-minded and, not to put too fine a point on it, credulous. They'll be happy to provisionally believe in something until proven otherwise.

After achieving some modest popularity, though, Bad Science starts to lose supporters. More and more scientists become convinced that the data doesn't support the theory. Eventually you're left with only a small percentage of scientists believing in the Bad Science and the overwhelming majority abandoning it. Conversely, Good Science will eventually acquire a substantial supermajority. There'll remain a small percentage of naysayers into the indefinite future, which is why you look at the trend, not the exceptions.

Frequently, the trend can also be seen in the data. A bit of Bad Science will pop up because of an experiment or study that shows a large effect. When further experiments and studies fail to replicate that effect, or the effect comes and goes or becomes very small compared to the initial results and the noise in the experiment, those are all huge warning signs. Cold fusion failed both these kinds of trend lines.

Global warming denial fails the trend line. Deniers constantly trot out the hundreds of climate scientists who stand with them. What they don't mention is the tens of thousands of climate scientists who stand against them. Thirty years ago, that miniscule fraction might have been the start of a growing trend. Now, it isn't. It's the tail end of a declining minority. Anthropogenic climate change is settled science.

Watch out for the lone scientific "genius," crying out in the wilderness, whose work isn't appreciated or understood by the Establishment. That's a romantic notion promulgated in folklore and bad novels. In the real world, 99.9% of the time, the lone genius is a lone crackpot.

That's something you can look for in the discourse. The person who claims that they are asking questions that no one else dares to or that no one else has thought of, isn't. They are not smarter, cleverer, nor have a wider-ranging collective imagination than the thousands of other workers in that field. Any time you see someone saying in so many words, "I am so much more brilliant than all of them, because I have thought of this basic question that none of them have," you're seeing Bad Science. That one you can take to the bank. Don't bother reading any further in their screed; they will have nothing of value to tell you.

Another Bad Science sign is the "God of the Gaps" problem. This pops up in Creation Science (one of the grand old men of Bad Science) all the time. A classic tool of the Bad Scientist is to home in on some unresolved question and treat it as paramount, in essence saying, "Aha, science can explain A through Y, but they cannot explain Z. Therefore their science fails."

Nope, not even close. Science rarely has complete or perfect answers. There are always unresolved questions and gaps in our knowledge. Creation scientists love to point those out as proof that evolution isn't a viable theory. The problem is that the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller and of less and less importance. Remember what I said about trend lines? The god who was supposed to create entire species has been relegated to creating subtleties of molecular biochemistry and statistical selection processes. Most philosophers and theologians consider that a pretty piss-poor version of a god. Make a note: mixing science and religion? Always a bad idea for both of them.

This also shows up among the global warming deniers, who keep looking for the anomalous tree in a forest of coherent explanations. They have no trouble finding such; climatology and geophysics are really messy and incomplete sciences. Much Good Science is. Life is not always neat. Recognizing that does not make you brilliant.

•    •    •

Next time I'll pick up with the genuine nutters and crackpots, some of whom are genuinely dangerous.

©2013 by Ctein, all rights reserved

This is Ctein's 300th weekly column for TOP, which, according to the Editor's arithmetic, means he's been writing for us for .17333 years.

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Andrew Molitor: "t may be worthwhile to add a small compensating factor for money, where that quantity can be estimated. There's a lot of, if not Bad Science, at any rate Not Very Good Science which is done because there's grant money available. The relevant community may be hem and haw a bit on whether the science is any good, but by golly, that's a lot of money, so not very many will actually break ranks until the Science is shown to be really really Bad. That can take a while because, well, money. Cutting edge medicine seems to suffer from this a lot. It tends to sort itself out—eventually—but boy does it take a long time. Anyways. If you know about the money, and there's a great deal of it coming down on the Consensus side, you might want to squint at that side a little more closely."

Steve: "Try Conjectures and Refutations by Sir Karl Popper. Gets to the heart of this matter and is far from an impossible read.

Peter Horby: "I'm more than a little bemused by your characterization of Newton's theory of gravity as 'Bad Science.' To my layman's eye, Newtonian gravity is the poster child for Good Science. Every observation of the positions of celestial bodies for 250 years was explained by it, its predictive power was immense, and it still works perfectly well as the non-extreme limit of Einsteinian gravity. Good science is what Popper always said it was—a model with explanatory power which is falsifiable."

Ctein replies to Steve and Peter: I tend to be a Popperian (Popperite?) myself, but in fairness I should note it's not the only philosophy of science out there. There are other legitimate and useful ways to view the process. And, no, I can't write a column about that—I don't know this stuff well enough. Just mentioning this in case people are interested.

Newton's theory of gravity was Bad Science because it was fraud. At the time Newton proposed it, there were several competing theories of gravitation and the data was far too noisy to clearly favor one over the other. So Newton falsified his data—he published faked results that favored his theory!

This is the kind of fraud that is essentially impossible to detect. It's even likely to survive the Popper test because the theory is replicable.

Mendel, by the way, did essentially the same thing—he threw out breeding results that didn't fit the pattern he expected because he really didn't understand how statistics of small numbers work. In his case it probably wasn't deliberate fraud, he likely thought there was something genuinely wrong with those experiments. So it was more like malfeasance. Newton knew exactly what he was doing.

Throwing out data because you don't like the results when you can't see anything wrong with the experiment is poor process. It's one thing to eliminate it because you have a good reason for thinking it's wrong. (Just thinking, "Well, it doesn't fit with the rest of the data," is not a good reason.") That's why the superluminal neutrinos were an example of Good Science that was wrong. The researchers firmly believed the results were erroneous. The problem was that the experiment was so complex that they were unable to find the flaw in it. Which meant, under the precepts of good science, they had to release the results. They did so, clearly stating that they expected to be wrong and they needed help in finding out how they were wrong.

Of course, they hoped they were right, I mean, guaranteed Nobel Prize and all that. But they were pretty damn sure they weren't.

Steve Jacob: "I agree 100%. My degree was in chemistry, which gives me a smattering of physics, climatology and biochemistry. But I understand enough to know that my own opinion is worthless. I have not seen all the data, I am not qualified to judge the modelling involved, and I am certainly not up to date on all the prior research. But I can spot bogus nonsense or concocted statistics a mile away. They are normally reported in newspapers and popular news channels, usually out of context and using some strident quack as the only source. And I choose to accept (not on faith but as a working premise) that a large scientific consensus has a much better chance of being correct than a small number of vocal antagonists, especially if the question is one that has attracted a sufficient amount of attention, research and peer review. After all, just because I may not like the answer, or may even find the conclusion inconvenient or uncomfortable, none of that makes the slightest difference. My personal agenda is irrelevant. Clearly some people find that a hard thing to accept."

Mike Kukulski: "You both missed mentioning one 'bad science' trait and then used it yourself: 'xxx is settled science.' There is no such thing as 'settled science.'"

Ctein replies: Nope. Wrong. Settled science does not mean that there are no further questions to be asked. It means that the particular question under consideration has been settled. You can move on to details, refinements, exceptions, and extensions, but the starting question is no longer under debate. "Anthropogenic climate change" (and note that the whole phrase has to be considered, not the subset someone wants to argue about, nor additional adjectives that someone wants to tack on to set up their straw man) is settled science. The fundamental Theory of Evolution is settled science. The Atomic Theory is settled science. The Face On Mars (being ordinary geology and an illusion of lighting) is settled science.

Arguing those further is a waste of time and energy and resources and only gives a platform to the oddballs who are  otherwise at risk of losing their soapboxes. Keeping debate open on topics that no longer need to be debated is not a virtue, it is a vice. It is a waste of resources. It has no value.

Claiming "open-mindedness" is not a virtue when what you're being open-minded about is nonsense.

And, yes, engaging the God of the Gaps and the Conspiracies in the Closet as a way to maintain the veneer that there is still intelligent discussion to be resolved is nonsense.

Chris Lucianu: "Great column, generally. Minor issues:

1. Bad and Good Science need to be defined explicitly; especially if this Guide is aimed at the interested layperson.
2. The counterexamples (Newtonian gravitation; superluminal neutrinos) need to be explained for the sake of the layperson rather than merely mentioned in passing. I'm somewhat familiar with the matter, therefore I have an idea about what Ctein is trying to convey. Laypersons less conversant with the subject may just be passed by.

"It's tough to be a ruthless editor—which any good editor must be—with an author as august and as brilliant as Ctein. But I'm going to stick my neck out (fully expecting to have it chopped): I'd mark paragraphs #2 and #3 of the column with a squiggly line on the margin and send them respectfully back to the author with this note: 'Define. Exemplify. Clarify.'

"Objections: 'Make a note: mixing science and religion? Always a bad idea for both of them.' Nope. Just for religion. Whatever can be backed by scientific evidence ('Good Science' in Ctein's terms) is outside the scope of religions. Whatever is merely speculative is probably Bad Science (and bad philosophy, too). Whatever is just belief is just that: unsubstantiated belief.

"'Climatology and geophysics are really messy and incomplete sciences.' I'd argue that the subjects themselves are messy and complicated, not the science trying to untangle them. But so is reality. Our ideal is the simple, the elegant, the intuitive. Unraveling the complication and revealing the complexity is a huge step on the path of understanding."

Ctein replies: Unfortunately, in this case, I am the Ruthless Editor. I hacked and slashed like crazy. The two columns add up to 2500 words as it is. To give the subject proper treatment, I would've had to let them run twice that long but then they would've really fallen under the doctrine of 'longissimus, non legi' (thank you, Liza Furr!).

This is always a problem for online magazines; you simply can't write 3–5000 word articles and expect people to read them. So you leave out a whole bunch of interesting and germane stuff. Mike and I both do this all the time, 'cuz we haveta.

I figured I'd get to explaining the counterexamples in the comments and questions (which I are already have). I decided not to define Bad and Good Science, as people can pretty much figure out the definitions recursively, by reading my meta-rules.

As for mixing science and religion, that's a whole 'nother subject, but it does get mixed both ways annoyingly often and the results are almost invariably problematical. Attempting to establish your faith on the basis of science is building on pillars of sand; scientific paradigms are regularly overturned. Conversely, trying to make science follow your religious beliefs is not likely to go well, for obvious reasons.

Although it worked out very well for Keppler. Good Science inspired by exceedingly unlikely theology. There's always an exception.

Randal Jaffe: "Wonderful! As a scientist I try to make these points to my students. It is hard to explain to the general audience that science is not monolithic—sometimes the dissenting voice is correct. That is quite different from taking every dissenting voice as correct."

Bob Blakley: "Attempting to bend the subject back to photography, better instruments can support better science. Certainly TEPCO practiced bad science by using 100mSv Geiger counters to measure radiation they thought was in the range of 100mSv—because they were using the instrument at the edge of its range. When they switched to a better instrument last week they found that the real radiation intensity near Fukushima was about 1800mSv.

"Eadweard Muybridge improved science with a faster camera; he immediately settled the question of whether a horse's four hooves are simultaneously off the ground when it gallops using the new instrument. Edgerton took high-speed photography as a collector of scientific data to great heights. And Edison used it to invent motion pictures. Galileo built a better telescope (another imaging system!) to settle the question of whether there were bodies in the universe that did not revolve around (ahem) the Earth.

"At the end of the day, better data usually trumps cleverer theories, though the theories are what we like to argue about. And cameras can be very useful data collectors."

Jordan: "Conspiracy allegations are also a good way to quickly triage scientific claims—people who promote bad science tend to resort to conspiracy theories pretty quickly when attempting to get support for their work. You see this most clearly in the bio-medical field (alternative-medicine proponents alleging conspiracies that keep cancer 'cures' from coming to market, etc.) Another piece of the story is the role of the media in fuelling the confusion between good science and bad science. Lone wolves and underdogs make for great journalistic drama, but the tendency of reporters to go for 'both sides of the story' often ends up giving far too much weight to marginal work with little or no scientific support. And the problem gets magnified when the reporter has no scientific background (which is often the case)."

Stephen Scharf: "Regarding Ctein's comment 'be suspicious when scientists step far outside their field of expertise and report unusual results':

"While certainly Bad Science can result from this, history has proven that a lot of Good Science has also resulted from scientists stepping into another discipline; usually because that scientist is is not bound by conventional paradigmns and brings a fresh pair eyes and thinking to bear on scientific problems that have eluded the domain experts who are bound by 'in-the-box thinking.'

"For example, it was the experiments with the RII phage system that Seymour Benzer did that established that nucleic acids were the biological constituent that governed phenotypic inheritance. Benzer a trained as a physicist.

"Francis Crick was also trained in physics and did seminal work both in the discovery of the structure of DNA, conceived of the notion of transfer RNAs in protein translation and made contributions to neurobiology.

"The basis for antibody diversity eluded immunologists and cell biologists for decades until Philip Leder elucidated the genetic basis of antibody diversity. Leder was a molecular biologists, not an immunologist.

"I was sitting in a graduate protein biochemistry class years ago when the professor said that only 'protein-based' enzymes could demonstrate biochemical catalytic activity. When I asked him why RNAs could not demonstrate catalytic activity, he laughed in my face and said, 'Absolutely not, only proteins can serve as catalysts in the form of enzymes.' In 1982 (six years after my question in that biochemistry class...), Thomas Cech discovered catalytic RNAs and won the Nobel Prize in 1989. Cech was not a biochemist, either.

"So, while it may be true a signficant percentage of the time that scientists crossing over to other disciplines often do Bad Science, it is also true that truly significant breakthroughs have occured when scientists from other disciplines have done just that.

"Having a been a professional scientist my entire life, my formal training was in bacteriology, but virtually all of my significant work  has been in  disciplines I was not formally trained in, ranging from molecular biology (I'm one of the scientists at Cetus Corporation that developed the polymerase chain reaction, or PCR) to human genetics to molecular diagnostics to DNA forensics.

"Across the breadth of that career, if there's one thing I've learned, it's that it's not what scientific domain you're trained in that's important, it's how you think as a scientist that's important."

To the Vegans (Followup) (OT)

Just a note to all those recommending a vegan diet after my "Open Mike" post on Sunday, in the form of the short film Forks Over Knives (available on Amazon Instant Video, on Netflix, and on DVD) and the book The China Study, which I did read (and which I probably should have included in my post on Sunday to counterbalance the Taubes title). And I'm sympathetic to those who feel that food production (specifically, industrial-scale livestock husbandry) is one source of many of the world's problems.

My problem is, if I were to adopt a "whole food, plant based" diet, what would I eat? Seriously. I have only a vague idea what a vegan diet entails, but I'm fairly certain this leads directly back to my Principle #1: "A diet can't be torture." I'm not a good cook, I'm not organized, I'm not a good food shopper or meal planner, and I generally don't care for vegetables. I positively dislike fruit; I'll eat it when it's served to me, but (apart from the sugary apple) I've never cared for it*.

And the small amount of whole milk I add to my coffee, and fish in the form of occasional sushi and smoked salmon, is non-negotiable. I'm not giving up those things and I don't care what Drs. Esselstyn and Campbell say. I don't smoke, I don't do drugs, and I don't drink alcohol. If eating salmon is a sin then I'm a sinner, and there's an end on it. It's not as bad as saying I refuse to give up my Ben and Jerry's**.

On the good side, last night I had a mixed-greens salad in addition to my nightly bowl of rice, and that was tasty. And this morning I added some mixed fruit to my morning oatmeal, and I have to admit it made for a distinct improvement. It seemed so sweet that I probably will cut out the Splenda and sugar.

So, to the vegans, thanks for that.

Mike

*At least it's not as bad as Brussels sprouts or beets, however. If I had been the starving caveman who first stumbled upon the Brussells sprout and decided it was quasi-edible in the pinch, I'm sorry, but my band of nomadic hunter-gatherers would have all starved to death, because I would have gone thumbs-down on the Brussels sprout.

**I don't eat ice cream at home on my current diet.

ADDENDUM: Here's a partial list of some of the assertions I read in my traversal of diet and nutrition books:

• Beans are a wonder food and the best way to get all the protein you need on a vegetarian diet.
• Beans are nearly indigestible by humans and responsible for many digestive ills.
• Humans evolved to eat animals and raw plants and haven't been able to evolve to adapt to the produce of husbanded animals (dairy) and domesticated grains and agricultural crops yet.
• Dietary fat is the cause of heart disease and therefore fat-free diets are essential to health. Carbohydrates should be the bedrock of your diet.
• Carbohydrates are terrible for you because they spike your blood sugar and cause an insulin overresponse. A no-carb diet is the best way to lose weight.
• Vegetarian diets are the healthiest.
• Vegetarian diets are extremely unhealthy and can actually result in malnutrition.
• It's calories in, calories out. 
• It's all a matter of metabolism.
• We're all human and our bodies are all the same.
• We're all different and respond to dietary inputs in radically different ways.
• Diet is a health issue.
• Diet is a moral issue.
• Diet is personal.
• Diet is cultural.
• You need to eat a big breakfast.
• You should be a vegan until 6 p.m.
• Moderate exercise is crucial to a dietary weight loss plan.
• Moderate exercise has no effect on your weight and weight loss is not the reason to exercise.
• Your instincts will take care of you, so you should eat whatever you want.
• You must avoid all processed foods.
• You should never "graze," nosh, or snack.
• Lots of small meals throughout the day are best.
• Fructose is the "bad half" of sugar and should be avoided at all costs.
• Fructose is found in fruits and therefore makes a good sugar substitute.
• The body treats all kinds of sugar the same.
• Honey, and brown sugar or "raw" sugar are much better for you than table sugar.
• Nuts are high in fat and should be limited.
• Nuts correllate with disease prevention the best of any food.
• Sugar is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
• High fructose corn syrup is the cause of the obesity epidemic.
• Meat and dairy are the cause of the obesity epidemic.
• Carbohydrates, breads, and potatoes are the cause of the obesity epidemic.
• Laziness, lack of exercise, and lack of willpower are the cause of the obesity epidemic.
• Antibiotics are the cause of the obesity epidemic, because they have affected the bacteria in our guts in ways we don't understand.
• Industrial food is the cause of the obesity epidemic, and small, part-time organic farming is our hope for the future.
• "Organic" is a marketing word that's been co-opted by Big Ag and everything associated with it is a fraud and a rip-off.

And the list of contradictions goes on and on....

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Gillooly: "My diet has transformed over the last ten years—42 years old now.  First, while photographing a nutrition lecture primarily on the evils of sugar, it dawned on me that 14 desserts per week, 6–8 bowls of cereal a day and sugary drinks might not be a good idea! (I was blessed to be eating like that and still be 6'1" and 185 pounds, but lots of diabetic relatives...). I have not had a sugary drink since that day, eliminated cereal and eat maybe 5 desserts per week. Melted 12 pounds in 30 days and never put them back.

"One year ago I went down with diverticulitis. Went to a nutritionist after that episode and his basic advice was: gluten free, dairy free—follow it 80%.

"I melted off another 12 pounds and that's where I sit—6'1", low 160s.  Eating lots of salads with tuna, chicken, fish, etc.

"I am a huge fan of the Forks Over Knives/China Study model, but my interpretation of it wasn't to go vegan as much as eat real food and cut down on the overdosing of animal protein. I think the full-on whole-foods plant-based diet is extreme to most people, but if my genetics were such that i was choosing that or insulin by needle and 30 pills per day, I would opt for the whole-foods plant-based diet!"

Rev. Heng Sure: "I'm a Buddhist monk, living in a vegetarian/vegan monastic community in the Bay Area. I started eating a plant-based diet in 1969 and became vegan fifteen years ago. 'Plant-based' is an elegant, disarming label for those who find 'vegetarian' a polarizing, polemical label. Otherwise, I explain that I eat a 'harmless diet,' and if people want clarity I explain that I eat nothing that had a face or a mother, and that I try to satisfy my nutritional needs in a way that causes the least suffering to others. I find that every dietary change that increases awareness of the complex web of conditions that sustain our interdependent lives tends to make that meal nutritious to both body and soul. More power/health to you, Mike!"

Yvonne: "Changes you can make and stick to are the only ones that work. None of us can live up to an ideal: that's the recipe for failure. It's best to keep it real and forget perfection: do what you can. At our age, change is not at all easy. Congrats on what you have accomplished. Seven years ago I changed our diet to low carb. I stopped baking (except for special occasions) and minimized bread consumption. I stopped serving rice, potatoes and pasta, subbing them with extra veg and salads. We still eat cookies (my husband can't live without them) and chocolate, and the odd ice cream. I lost 20 pounds and my high blood pressure; my sweetie lost 10 without trying. He isn't as sensitive to gaining weight on carbs as I am. We've managed to stick to this so I guess the key is: do something you can live with for the rest of your life. That's why celery diets don't work.

"P.S. Nice to find your blog again. It's like catching up with an old friend."

Mike replies: Well hello Yvonne! Long time no hear from. How are things in the garden? [Yvonne is a well-known gardening writer and blogger in Ontario, Canada.]

ZZPhoto: "Yay, another completely irrelevant off-topic 'article.' Exactly what we needed. [Remainder of scornful rant deleted —Ed.]

Paul (partial comment): "I have been enjoying the posts and comments about eating...."

Amazon Introduces New Paperwhite (OT)

The latest and best-yet (and cheapest) version of Amazon's Kindle Paperwhite e-reader has just been announced and is available for preorder. (Note: You definitely want to pay the extra twenty bucks for the one "Without Special Offers." Right, "special offers"...otherwise known as ads.) [Ed. note: There is some dissention to this opinion in the Comments section. See Dogman's Featured partial comment below.]

After a rocky start, I've gotten addicted to my Kindle for "straight text" reading. By "straight text" I mean that the Kindle is best suited for books solely of prose that you typically start reading from the beginning and read all the way through to the end...novels, history, narratives, general nonfiction. It's not the killer app for books that have illustrations, or for books that are used more like you use reference books, skipping around in the book looking for specific things or cross-referencing things, or for books that need specific formatting such as most poetry books. But since 90% of my reading is straight-through and words-only, it has become my reading device of choice (challenged only by the iPad, which I also often use to read).

For books like the scarifying page-turner The Orphan Master's Son (which I'm literally scared to keep reading...dark, violent, and black-hearted, its depraved feeling-tone clings to the psyche like skunk smell to a dog); non-fiction gems like The Omnivore's Dilemma that I mentioned on Sunday or Empire of the Summer Moon that I cannot shut up about*; or bestsellers like The Cuckoo's Calling by the current Blob That Ate Tokyo of literary marketing, the Kindle is perfect.

A few oddities:

• Sometimes I will buy a conventional paper book, start it, like it, and then buy the electronic version so I can read it more conveniently on my Kindle.
• Sometimes I will buy a Kindle book, read it, like it, and then buy it in a paper version so I can have "the real thing" for my bookshelves. (It becomes obvious here that physical books themselves are tokens, talismans possessed of their own symbolic magic, but then I think they always have been that for me.)

For the most part, however, I don't buy most books twice(!).

UPDATE: Piotr Edelman tells me that Amazon will launch "MatchBook" in October, a program that will allow you to add the Kindle version of a physical book you purchase for only a small additional price, reportedly between $1 and $3. There are said to be 10,000 titles included in the initial MatchBook launch. Thanks to Piotr, and to HD for the link.

As I think I've mentioned before, the Kindle has affected ("impacted"?) my book-buying habits considerably. I now buy far fewer paper books, but better ones—usually books that are fine and rare in some way, or that have physical properties that cannot be duplicated in an electronic version—beautiful layout, typography, printing, bindings, formatting, or illustrations. Also, I've donated more than 25 boxes full of books to a local used bookstore—mostly books that I don't feel I need to have just for their texts any more. The Cloud will take care of me.

It has not affected at all the main focus of my book-collecting: photobooks. Paper remains far and away the medium of choice for those, although I can see that electronic portfolios can serve well for photographs that are native to the digital domain and/or that you just need or want for their content primarily.

Anyway, if you haven't seen a Kindle lately, they really have improved by leaps and bounds. While I haven't seen the newest one yet, one friend said of the original Paperwhite (which I have), that it's "about four times better than the orginal Kindle." That's right. It has become a reading tool I wouldn't want to be without.

Mike

*Something about that book "turns people into advocates for it," in the words of my friend Scott Hill. He tipped me to a review by Hugo Lindgren in the Times, who calls it "a great book that has had the unfortunate effect of turning me into a bore at social gatherings."

"Most people, I have learned the hard way," Lindgren writes, "would rather not have a long, one-sided conversation about the Comanche Indians. Oh, well, sorry. This history of the tribe and its vicious fight to hold on to its territory in the mid-19th century is powerful and disquieting...." Too funny, because I become a bore in the same way when I try to get people to read this book.

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dogman (partial comment): "Kindles now dominate book reading at our house. We have three. In a household of two. Plus a dog. The dog doesn't read. (She did attend school as a pup but never graduated--she got a certificate of attendance.) I do disagree on the 'Special Offers' choice, however. We saved the extra bucks and got the models with the 'Special Offers' ads and, honestly, they are totally unobtrusive...." [See the Comments section for the rest of Dogman's comment. —Ed.]

Scott: "I love my Kindle too, but I have learned to avoid older books on it because I find so many editing/formatting problems (e.g., hyphens where they clearly don't be-long, typos of various snorts, and strange spacing on titles). With newer books the thing is amazing (and I did not expect to like it)—especially for reading in bed without waking up a sleeping spouse.

"P.S. I'm going to buy Empire of the Summer Moon tonight."

Frances: "I cannot stand Kindles or any e-readers, give me a good old book any day. People keep telling me I will convert but I really don't see it happening."

adamct: "My biggest problem with the Kindle is very simple: Kindle books aren't cheap. On two occassions recently, I had cause to buy about 10 different books (a total of about 20 books). In almost every case, new versions of the books were either cheaper or very close in price to the Kindle version (even after shipping). But more importantly, used versions of the books were readily available in good condition for far less than either.

"Just to take a couple of examples linked to above (all physical copies include shipping costs):

Empire of the Summer Moon:
Kindle: $10.38
New (paperback): $12.09
Used (hardcover): $9.72
Used (paperback): $6.69

The Omnivore's Dilemma:
Kindle: $10.89
New (hardcover): $14.90
Used (hardcover): $9.51
Used (paperback): $6.09

"And for what it's worth, those examples actually tend to tilt toward the Kindle, since at least there is a difference of a few bucks between the Kindle and the new versions. I have frequently seen new physical copies sell for less than the Kindle price, for reasons that escape me.

"But my biggest problem with buying the Kindle version of a book is the fact that I can't read it, and then pass it on to friends and family members who might like it. After I read it, the book becomes useless to me. And I can't re-sell it on Amazon! ;-)"

Mike replies: I hope someone will chime in with the real details, but I don't think that last is quite true. You can share your copy with some number of other Kindles, and Amazon has a "lending library" program where many books are free. I don't know the details because I've never used either program and I'm getting jammed up for time today so I can't go research it.

[UPDATE: Turns out that the lending library is only available to Amazon Prime members, which cost $79 annually and primarily enables free shipping for frequent customers (it saves me money, so I'm a member). Your ability to loan your ebook is severely limited—you can only loan the ebook to one person, once, for a limited time, and it's not available to you during the period of the loan. So it turns out adamct is much more right than wrong here. (Thanks to Techfan for the information.)

Speed: "For me, the convenience of always having my library with me (phone, tablet, laptop, desktop—I gave away my B&W Kindle and haven't used the Kindle Fire for over a year) outweighs the less than perfect but always improving reading 'experience.' Last year I threw in the final towel and moved my magazine subscriptions from analog to digital. I now can pack one or two more lenses instead of one or two more books.

"I agree that as a pure reader, the Paperwhite is likely the best."

Good News and Bad News

Print Sale: The good news is that we'll be having our next Print Sale starting less than two weeks from today. It's one that's been in negotiation, all told, for almost three years now! An original artwork created specially for you by a famous father-son photographer duo. I'll have more about this in the intervening two weeks; the sale starts at noon on Sunday, September 15th, in case you want to make note of it.

Temporary Closing: The bad news is that because of some pressing family business, I have to close down the blog from September 7th through the 11th. I've been called out of town for those days. It's not a vacation by any stretch, and I'm going to have a lot on my plate and can't see trying to make the site limp weakly along getting 10% of my attention. But it's only those four days. And I do offer my apologies.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Nikon D700II

I think Nikon needs to re-introduce a refreshed version of the D700. Maybe a bit smaller and lighter, maybe stripped just a bit to shave the price, but essentially the same camera—no extra features or functionality, same controls in the same places, just whatever updates would bring its functionality up to SOTA.

Seems to me some cameras are such "hits"—they get everything so right—that they deserve to become classics and live on. Yeah, even in the digital-electronic era. I dunno, what do you think?

Mike
(Thanks to Joe, Jim, Bill and all the other D700 users from yesterday's post)

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Matthew: "I sold my D700 to help fund my D800, and don't regret it. The three things that I wasn't thrilled with on the D700 are all fixed: 100% viewfinder, a dedicated button for bracketing, and enough resolution for very large prints. But I handled a D700 the other day, and it just felt so much better in my hand. I can't rule out owning one of these again."

GH: "The D800 is the replacement for the D700. While the D800 may not be enough to convince some D700 users to upgrade, there's no reason to move backwards. That's what the D600 is for."

Dave Stewart: "Suspect the fact I recently bought another second-hand one will give a clue to my view...."

Tom Simonsen: "Sounds like a good idea. Talked to a D700 owner on Sunday, and he was not going to buy neither the D600 or D800. The former is missing too many things, and the D800 has too many pixels and is a bit too sluggish. A D700 refresh with the 24-MP sensor from D600 was his wish."

Glenn Brown: "I do not need a DSLR for professional work and using film converted to digital bodies and lenses make no sense at all. I switched to the Fujifilm X-Pro1 a year ago and never looked back at the too-long-in-the-tooth DSLR."

Dave Jenkins: "Canon did that with the 5D—took a great camera and just kept making it better."

[Leading Nikon expert] Thom Hogan (partial comment): "This seems to be a popular notion, but a misplaced one, I think. When I ask people who ask for a D700 update about what bringing it up to state of the art (SOTA) would mean, I start to get lists of things that, well, essentially mean it isn't a D700 any more...." [See the rest of Thom's comment in the Comments section. —Ed.]

Gene Lowinger: "Update? Meh! I'll keep my old D700 just as it is. Hardly ever use it since switching to the X-Pro1, but still love to fondle it."

John Krumm: "I'm still waiting for the sub-$1000 full-frame camera, but I guess that's what the used market is for. Alas, the D700 seems popular enough to compete with the newer D600. Both go for around $1500 used depending on condition."

Tim McGowan: "Sort of like Ford bringing back the Mustang."

Craig A. Lee: "I used to think I wanted a D700. Then I bought a D800 and never thought of the D700 again. Life and tech moves on."

Craze-y Days

I keep thinking of the 1890s. And no, to you younger readers, I wasn't around then. This post is not about nostalgia for the days of my youth.

So...why? Well, there was a camera craze in the 1890s. Previously, photography had mostly been accomplished by cameras held up on three sticks, by people who were initiates in the arcane arts of developing and printing; this took dedication and resources, and such devotees were relatively rare. The "hand-camera craze" of the 1890s was inaugurated by the advent of the Kodak in 1888; suddenly, everyone was taking pictures. Photography had suddenly become much easier, and much more widely and readily available. (Remind you of anything?) It's estimated that a million and a half Kodaks had found their way into the nation's hands by 1898—and there were just about a quarter as many people in the U.S.A. then as now. You did have to be moderately well-off to play. But it was the newest and latest technology, a modern contrivance, a modern convenience, and lots of people wanted to participate.

George Eastman with one of his Kodak hand cameras.
He kicked off a bona-fide craze in the 1890s.

What I've been wondering is whether we might not be smack in the middle (or maybe just a little toward the end) of just such a craze right now. Maybe, just maybe, the frenzied market for ever-improving digital cameras, the uploading of vast numbers of snapshots to the Internet, the huge influx of newcomers to the hobby, is all a phase, a fad—a craze. Maybe future photo historians will look back on this period and have a nice neat name for it, like, I don't know, the Megapixel Race or the Y2K Digicam Craze or some other nice name that ties the phenomenon up with a bow.

We humans have a touching way of assuming that everything is progress and that all progress is permanent—that all is upswell, and the swelled-up state is the way it's going to be from now on, forevermore. But I don't know. Maybe this is a wave—a rogue wave—and once it passes it'll be gone.

Just a thought.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Gregory May: "One of my favorite quotes, from Alfred Stieglitz: 'Photography is a fad well-nigh on its last legs, thanks principally to the bicycle craze.'"

The Most Desirable Camera on the Planet

Reasons:

• Good looking
• Built-in EVF
• Tiltable EVF
• Tilt-up viewing screen
• Built-in IS
• It's the latest newest thing
• I owned several of its direct predecessors
• You can't get one quite yet.

The best cameras are usually ones that look especially promising but aren't in peoples' bags yet. Once they're actually shipping, their desirability takes the first big hit; because it is revealed that, in fact, despite early indications, it's just a camera, and does a lot of the same things that other cameras do. That takes the shine off quite a bit. The second big hit to its desirability comes when it gets reviewed, and the reviewers have to find a few things wrong with it, and the few wrong things are trumpeted throughout the echo chamber by people who either have bought, or have decided to buy, something else. (It's important to them that everyone else know that they have made the smarter choice.) The final nail in the coffin comes when it's a few months old and some new newest latest thing is announced...which you can't get yet. That thing acquires all the benefits of the grass-is-greener syndrome and shines with excessive brightness because of it. The old most desirable camera then seems like last Spring's fashions. Yesterday's news. Along with the first signs of wear, a slightly shabby, distinctly forlorn air clings to it.

It's funny how, with digital cameras, you seldom encounter anyone saying how much they love their three-year-old camera and plan to buy a second body on closeout so they can continue shooting with it for as long as possible. But you encounter hordes of people eager to get the first glimpse of next Spring's fashion.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Joe Holmes: "My Nikon D700 is the first body I ever kept rather than selling to fund a new body. So that's kind of the same as buying an older body on closeout."

Jim Hamstra: "I'm very happy with my Nikon D700 after more than three years' use. I have looked at the D800 have no desire to get one as I see no way it can improve my photography and the largest prints I make are 16x20, the same size I used to make in the darkroom. My backup camera has been a film camera but I recently decided to buy another D700 body and found it has been discontinued."

Mike replies: Have you two met?

Bob Smith: "One of the few exceptions that proves the rule...Nikon D700.

"P.S. My first post here. TOP has become my favorite photography site. Always good for interesting and intelligent subjects and discussion."

Mike replies: Thanks. Glad to have you. And, you're just in time to meet Joe and Jim.

Huw Morgan: "The comments on the D700 apply to my Canon 5D Mark II as well. These cameras both reached the point where they are virtually perfect at producing prints up to 16x20 inches. We are seeing diminishing returns of buying the latest and greatest. The same applies to my Sony NEX-7. We may be reaching the point in the camera market where consumers buy only when their cameras wear out. That may be sad news for Canon and Nikon."

Bill: "I just weighed and measured my favorite camera/lens: Pentax ME Super and SMC Pentax 50mm ƒ/1.4. The GX7 with 25mm Summilux weighs one ounce less, and is almost the exact same size (except the lens projects out a half-inch more). It's looking better and better!"

Tim (partial comment): "Ooh, an article born of some cynicism. I approve."

Arg: "With posts like this, how do you ever expect to earn revenue from click-through sales???"

Open Mike: The Gruelandgrass Diet

This isn't going to be a long post, I hope. And please—I'm not lecturing to anyone. I'm merely describing what I'm doing. A personal matter, for me as it is for you. If I sound terse, it's only because I'm trying to cover a lot of ground in few words. (I didn't even get into the behavioral issues, which could easily double the size of this post.)

A while back I got fascinated by the obesity epidemic in America. I had reached a high point (or low point!) of 267 pounds (I'm 6' 1") and it seemed pretty clear that I was cruising toward 300. Within a relatively short period of time—well under two years—I read some 50 books on the subject. Along the way I tried many experiments on myself, including a liquid diet, a no-sugar diet, and Weight Watchers.

My general conclusion is that human science currently knows relatively little about human nutrition. We're in a period of darkness and ignorance, approximately equivalent to the state of epidemiology before the theory of germs was discovered, and our understandings are simpleminded and incomplete. This is why so many theories can compete, inconclusively. (I could write a whole disquisition on this idea as well.)

My motivation is simply to try to give myself a decent shot at reasonable longevity: you just don't see very many obese 80-year-olds. I don't want to go sailing towards old age burdened with a lot of excess weight. Also, I have sleep apnea, and "losing weight" was one of the treatments the doctors suggested.

I stopped reading the books when a) new ones were so much "more of the same" that I found myself simply skimming them, and b) the literary formula of the genre had become completely transparent. (The formula of a diet book goes, very roughly, promise, problem, author's personal testimonial and bonafides, The Solution, supportive scientific gobbledegook supposedly proving the efficacy of the solution, specific recommendations and encouragement, success stories.)

The "promise" is the absolute bedrock of any halfway decent diet book: this book is going to make you svelte, good-looking, popular, healthy, and happy. This book holds the key. And virtually every diet, no matter how crazy, has succeeded for somebody, somewhere.

Unfortunately, I, on the other hand, have no promise for you, and I think you probably shouldn't follow my diet. I think each person's weight-loss plan has to be custom-tailored to their individual circumstances, weaknesses, lifestyle, and tastes. (And beliefs, probably, but I won't get into that too much.)

However, I do think there are a few keys you might find useful. Note the emphasis on "might." These are a few basic principles I distilled out of my reading for my own benefit.

1. A diet can't be torture. Self-inflicted torture isn't sustainable. It inevitably must reach a stopping point. And when you revert to your old unregulated habits you'll gain the weight right back again (as I did after my liquid diet. It worked, but it was utter misery. I thought about food and self-control all day every day. No good.)

2. "Craving" is the cause of the obesity epidemic in my opinion. The food industry has created heavy cocktails of salt, sugar, and fat (not coincidentally the title of the best book on the subject) in a great variety of forms and formats, and commercial distribution has made these not only widely available but virtually unavoidable. Consider a few examples amongst a sea of them: ketchup could be considered sugar sauce; sushi (sushi is the rice, not the raw fish often eaten with it) is made with a sugar and vinegar solution; if you emptied a grocery store of all the products that unnaturally contain added sugars, the aisles would be almost bare (you almost cannot find any brand of bread, soup, or peanut butter, among many other product categories, that don't contain added sugars); and you can buy a single "Baby Ruth" candy bar that contains a quarter of the entire calorie allotment you should eat in an entire day and more sugar than you should consume in a day—and you can buy it at office supply stores, hardware stores, or the gas station, among many other completely inappropriate places.

Just start to notice, if you haven't already, a) the size of candy or dessert products offered, b) the amount of them on display, and c) the variety of places they're for sale.

Wheat also triggers or contributes to cravings in many people. A good book if you feel you're addicted to breads and cakes is Wheat Belly by William Davis, M.D., a cardiologist who noticed in treating people for celiac disease (wheat intolerance) that weight loss was a side effect of eliminating wheat in the diet. (It was one of the books I skimmed.)

Grossly overdosing on these substances, especially (for me) sugar, not only engenders a craving for more sugar but transfers to other foods as well. That is, if you grossly overeat sugar, you'll crave more food of all kinds. (Ask yourself a simple question: have you ever felt "full" or overstuffed, and yet were still experiencing a strong desire for more sweets or more food? Well, that's not "hunger." That's craving. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of obese and morbidly obese people haven't felt actual hunger in a very long time.) The hardest job of a diet is to control cravings, so that your body's natural tendency toward maintaining equilibrium can gradually be restored.

3. Most popular trusims about diet are wrong, from "move more, eat less" to "calories in, calories out." A good "deep" primer on this is Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It. If you think diet is just a matter of calories, I suggest you subsist on 2200 calories of sugar water a day, and I'll choose 2200 calories of fresh vegetables and lean meats. We'll see who's hungrier from day to day and who's in better health six months from now. And if you think exercise is the solution to the obesity epidemic, consider that marathon runners on average weigh significantly more than their counterparts did forty years ago. Exercise is essential to your health for a great many reasons, but weight loss is not one of them. Weight loss is mainly a matter of diet, i.e., what you eat. Even the widespread idea that you must "eat more fruits and vegetables" might be wrong: if you have developed a deeply ingrained craving for sugar, you shouldn't eat a lot of fruit. Many is the "dieter" who temporarily suspends sugar-gluttonly for a diet very heavy in sugary fruits.

4. Understanding the basics of blood sugar, how your body controls it, and its effect on your health, mood, and energy level is essential. Getting a decent handle on the glycemic index and glycemic "shock" or "bounce" is crucial to your success. A good introduction to this is Rick Gallop's pleasant and practical little book The G.I. Diet. The science of this stuff gets very heavy very quickly, and understanding the state of the science isn't going to help your diet. Take the wisdom and let the scientists worry about the science.

5. Americans have a persistent "medicinal" approach to dieting, as if there is a "secret" to it. We have a strong cultural tendency to believe that either eating some specific substance or set of substances, or not eating some specific substance or set of substances will be the magical cure-all. My belief is that this is wrong. A good diet doesn't have to revolve around eating or not eating any particular kind of food. Consider that both the Mediterranean diet (high carbs, low fat) and the Atkins diet and its many offshoots (high fat, low carbs) can work.

Of course, there is a corollary to this principle, which is that we now eat a lot of things that aren't actually food. They resemble food, but they're not—they're faux food. I honestly think, for instance, that eating at any fast-food restaurant more than once a month is not a good idea, and one soft drink a week is too much. Those things are just not really fit for human consumption. On the other hand, virtually nothing not poisonous will kill you if you ingest it infrequently enough. Two Twinkies after every meal is a bad idea. Two Twinkies a year won't kill anybody.

One book that I did enjoy and continue to use, even though it leans a bit too much toward the magic-bullet, food-as-medicine approach, is The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth by Jonny Bowden. It surveys and summarizes the opinions of a number of nutritionists on the subject in the title.

6. This was the final key in the puzzle for me: You've got to give your stomach something to do. I read this somewhere, and I regret that I can't tell you where. It just locked me on to the solution to the problem in principle no. 1 above. Make sure your stomach has something to work on, and you won't be uncomfortable. The classic proof of this is a photograph of the equivalent number of calories in table sugar and in raw broccoli. I regret I can't find the illustration, but as you might imagine, it's a small heap of sugar and a very large heap of broccoli. Your stomach will be much happier with the latter.

•    •    •

So anyway, here are a few of the peculiar-to-me things I needed to cope with:

• I'm a bad cook, and don't really like food very much.
• I'm not hungry in the mornings, or through most of the day; I get ravenous at night. That's when I really need willpower and a coping strategy. YMMV.
• I don't have the energy or the enthusiasm to shop for and prepare elaborate meals, and my energy for it ebbs as the day goes on. On the other hand, I work at home and don't need to eat out a lot, which is an advantage. I originally started out eating my two abbreviated meals during the day, then having a big dinner; but it just didn't work, because I didn't have the energy to cook at night. So I switched the "main meal" to mid-day, which helped greatly in my case.
• I have a longstanding and pronounced "sweet tooth." This has been a big challenge for me. It took me more than a year to get used to coffee without sugar, for example. (Now, I really no longer like coffee with sugar.)

So I developed what I call my "Gruelandgrass diet." Anticlimactic drumroll:

First meal: After my two mugs of coffee, I have half a cup of "gruel" every morning (a.k.a. porridge, a.k.a. oatmeal), which I eat with cinnamon, 1 packet of Splenda, and one level teaspoon of sugar.

Second meal: Then, I fix a good meal for myself in the "middle" of the day (typically 3–4 p.m. in my case), when I still have sufficient energy to motivate myself to cook. 

I don't put a limit on how much I can eat at my midday meal. The rules are that it has to be made from ingredients (that is, not from a package); it has to include a vegetable; it has to contain some fat; it has to go easy on wheat and dairy; and I watch my portions of meat. Most days I have half a ham or turkey sandwich using high-fiber bread, a bowl of some sort of vegetables, and a bowl of soup, because that's easy to fix. And I'm not allowed more than 25g sugar in my "dessert," which I'm careful to eat right after the meal (again, to prevent glycemic rebound. I continue to eat about 44g of sugar a day, even though sugar is the main source of cravings and also my personal weakness. I'm aware that I should probably cut it to about 30g, which I think is about the optimum level for me. Cutting out sugar altogether isn't particularly good for me; it makes me feel mentally fuzzy.)

But when and if I want to, I'll fix myself as elaborate a midday meal as I want: baked salmon, egg noodles, and spinach, for example, or a beef tenderloin filet, red potatoes, and steamed broccoli. I just often don't want that much, or am too busy to cook it.

I still do eat out, but I'm careful. I don't eat out too often, or go crazy when I do.

Third meal: Finally, I have a half cup of Uncle Ben's rice and a glass of whole milk at night. Sometimes I mix it with about a third of a cup of wild rice (wild rice is a member of the grass family, whence the name "gruel and grass.") I use various sauces for the rice, for variety. Very occasionally, I substitute a baked potato for the rice, as a bow to Dr. Kathleen DesMaisons and her book Potatoes Not Prozac. That book is considered politically incorrect (people who take Prozac objected), and her enthusiasm for potatoes as a substitute for sugar was advice she had to back away from, as baked potatoes actually have a higher glycemic index than table sugar(!). The book is no longer in print, but it was important for me, in that it was the first book I read that explained the effect that sugar was having on my health.

It's important (well, for me) that the rice be Uncle Ben's Original converted rice, because its glycemic hit is especially low among rice types.

If I "want more" in either the morning or the evening, I'll have either one fried egg or one 4-oz. packet of smoked salmon with my oatmeal, and I can fix myself a mess of any sort of fresh vegetables at night to go along with the rice. Although most nights I simply don't bother.

These "extras" were very important to me at first, when the cravings were still subsiding. There's good news on that front: cravings from habitual excessive sugar and wheat consumption dramatically decline after three days and are largely gone in 10–14 days. Those first two weeks are hard, but it gets a lot easier.

That's it.

I weigh myself once a week on the morning of the same day each week.

My goal is to stay on the diet for 70 weeks, and my target is to lose a pound a week.

So far I've been on the Gruelandgrass diet for 22 weeks and have lost 25 pounds. If anything, I tend to lose weight a little too quickly, and I've had to increase my calories in a number of weeks to slow down the rate of weight loss a bit. I think in general the only flaw of my diet as it's currently constituted is that it's a little too low-cal; I need to build some more calories into it and then not depart from it quite so much. I haven't quite worked out yet how to do that.

There have been a lot of nice effects of this diet. For one thing, I look forward to my main meal more. It's also nice not having to decide what to eat all the time. As I've "gotten off" sugar, normal foods have begun to seem sweeter. And, I just feel better: more clear-headed, more energetic. Finally, my sleep is improving.

Most importantly, I'm never uncomfortable. It's just not torture. I still have to be vigilant about cravings: if I start craving, it's a sure sign that I've let sugar creep into my eating again somehow (that's how I found out about sushi being loaded with sugar!), and I have to find it and cut it back out. The most common causes of cravings are too much wheat or too much sugar. You just shouldn't experience food cravings, and feeling them is a very good clue that something is amiss and needs to be tweaked.

•    •    •

Obviously, my Gruelandgrass diet is tailored for me, my tastes, my weaknesses, my cooking abilities, my food tolerances, and my schedule. (One thing you might already have noticed in particular is that I have a high tolerance for eating more or less the same thing day after day. And you might not.)

Unfortunately, I'm not recommending my diet for others. I think that to devise a diet that will work for you, you have to educate yourself, analyze yourself and your own needs and tastes, and arrive at your own strategies. It's possible that your problems are similar to mine or that my solutions will work for you without modification. But not too likely.

My "principles" might give you something to think about, however. If there are any ground-level fundamentals you should take away from this post, in my view, they are that a good diet can't be torture and you've got to give your stomach something to do. Which, when you think about it, are different ways of saying the same thing.

Good luck to you if you're trying to lose weight.

Mike

"Open Mike" is when Your Humble Editor goes rogue every week, and writes about something outside of his field of expertise. "Open Mike" appears on Sundays on TOP.

UPDATE 9/19/2013: I actually made some pretty major modifications to my "Gruelandgrass" diet in the aftermath of all the discussion to this post. I decided to cut out dairy (except for about a cup of whole organic milk in my two mugs of coffee in the morning). I've added fresh fruit to my morning oatmeal and a large mixed salad to my evening bowl of rice. For my midday main meal, I've gone completely vegan...except that I add meat. Add rimshot here. But no orthorexia for me; I'm a flexitarian if I'm anything. My target is to eat a small amount of lean meat once a week, alternating poultry, cooked fish, raw fish, and red meat. To those who say this sullies the purity of veganism, well, I'm an omnivore.

The big problem with this supercharged version of my diet that my weight loss has gotten too fast. My target is one pound a week, and in the 18 days since I've made these changes I've plummeted from 242 lbs. to 236. To slow down the weight loss, I've turned to snacks of mixed nuts (11 different kinds)—very good for you in small amounts, but fatty and highly caloric. I hope to regain an equilibrium of slower, steadier weight loss for the remaining 46 weeks of my diet.

Since making these changes I feel markedly better physically—quite noticeably so. I have more energy and feel more clear-headed, and just feel better. Any residual discomfort with the diet is gone—I'm never hungry, enjoy my food, and don't feel tortured at all. I'm more enthused about a healthy diet than ever.

My old motto was "food is fuel," that idea so loathed by foodies. That's not right, though. My new mantra: food is medicine.

Note that all the comments below predate this Update.

—Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jim: "I'm vegan, have been for decades. Works great at keeping the weight down. I eat only very simple food, minimally cooked. No sugar, no salt. Works for me; but, as you say, food evangelism is just a waste of time and energy. The primary problem with in the U.S. is that we just eat far too much of everything. Even if you are moderately active, it takes surprisingly few calories to maintain weight. I don't think most people will be willing to eat as little as required for good weight control. Congratulations on your continued success."

Speed: "On one hand, I don't agree with much of what you say in the first part. But on the other more important hand, it works for you which is what counts. Congratulations and stick with it."

Tony Ayling: "I've often wanted to comment on your posts over the past few years of reading and enjoying your blog but this is the first time I've actually done it. You are right about diet lore being complex and full of contradictions. However, it doesn't need to be! Just adopt a whole food plant based diet and you can't go wrong. Watch the doco 'Forks Over Knives' [on Netflix —Ed.] and read a really interesting book called The China Study by Colin Campbell to learn about this lifestyle. I won't call it a 'weight loss diet' because that implies that it is something temporary. I've been doing this for about a year and at age 66 I have never felt so healthy and full of energy. The food is tasty, filling and above all healthy. You can eat as much as you like and are never having to rely on willpower.

"You don't need the dairy and meat that the modern world is addicted to. Here in Australia a couple in their sixties who are both raw food vegans (they only eat raw fruit, vegetables and nuts) are running around the whole country, doing a marathon every day for a whole year. They are currently on day 245 and have passed the 10,000 km mark. How's that for strength, endurance and health! All on raw fruit and veg! Google '365 marathons' to check them out."

Scott Jones: "I am so surprised that after you read Gary Taubes' book Why We Get Fat that you are still eating so many carbs. After reading about the biochemistry of fat partitioning, I am sure that you now know that carbs drive insulin which drives fat accumulation and makes it unavailable for energy use and you may be one of those unfortunate souls that is extremely sensitive to carbs. It is really the only control point that most people have of altering their fat partitioning genetics. Have you tried an ultra low carb diet? (high fat and protein). It seems to work wonders for everyone I know that tries it. And permanently without restricting calories. The medical community is slowly coming around to the realization that Atkins was right...."

Mike replies: Is there a vegan Atkins diet? That should be the best of all.

(Ignore me, I'm just trying to be funny.)