Morning Report: Worrisome trends in inventories 8/11/15

Markets are lower this morning after China devalued the yuan overnight. Bonds and MBS are up.

Wholesale inventories rose 0.9% in June, while wholesale sales rose only 0.1%. The ratio of inventories to sales rose to 1.3. This is a worrisome signal. A rising inventory to sales ratio is a harbinger of a cyclical recession. While there is a possibility that the West Coast Port strike from earlier this year is messing with the data, the trend is unmistakable.

Productivity rose less than expected in the second quarter, and unit labor costs were higher than expected, which was disappointing. The first quarter numbers were revised better (productivity up and unit labor costs down), however Q1 productivity was still flat and unit labor costs were higher than inflation. These two numbers can be volatile, so it makes sense to look at a moving average. The 12 month moving average for productivity is about 0.25%. The 12 month MA for unit labor costs is about 2.1%. Anyway, flat productivity and 2% wage inflation is not symptomatic of a great labor market, despite what the numbers say.

Small business optimism rose in July, according to the NFIB. Expectations for the economy accounted for about half the rise. Employment was flat. Increasing labor costs (not only wages, but regulatory burden) are depressing the bottom line as profits fall. In fact, most are reporting that the increase in labor costs is due to mandated benefits, not wage increases. This again speaks to the bifurcated market: the big S&P 500 companies are doing well, but much of that is due to (a) rock bottom interest rates and (b) overseas exposure. Those circumstances don’t really apply to the local dry cleaner. Which is why liberals can claim: “These hugely profitable companies refuse to pay a “fair” wage” and conservatives can claim “Regulation is strangling small business and those costs are manifested in stagnant wages.” Liberals are focusing their ire at the big multinationals and conservatives focus their ire at government. There is a bit of truth in both viewpoints.

Speaking of regulations, the American Enterprise Institute crunched the numbers and it turns out that Seattle lost about 1,300 jobs from Jan – June. Of course it is still early days, but it looks like the laws of supply and demand are still applicable in the labor market, regardless of what politicians think.

Completed foreclosures fell to 43k in June, according to CoreLogic. This is up 4.8% from May but down 14.8% from a year ago. The foreclosure inventory remains the highest in the Northeast, where the judicial states are still working through their backlog.

Google is now going to be known as Alphabet. They are re-organizing into a holding company structure.  The Street seems to like it.

64 Responses

  1. Frist!

    “Google is now going to be known as Alphabet. ”

    Ugh. I hate it. Rebranding often portends doom. Whatever, bring on the New Coke. I’m sure the world will love it!

    Like

  2. But the data on AGW is Rock.Fucking.Solid!

    Like

  3. Half Pint is running for Congress… http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/250781-little-house-star-running-for-congress

    She owes the IRS $360k but will undoubtedly argue that people like me don’t pay their fair share…

    Seriously, what is it with the left and unpaid taxes? It is like family values Republicans who blow their money on hookers and cocaine…

    Like

    • Brent:

      It is like family values Republicans who blow their money on hookers and cocaine…

      lol

      Like

    • Brent:

      An interesting comment on Half Pint’s run for congress:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422387/little-house-seat-prairie-kevin-d-williamson

      She would have done better to pay a little more attention to the politics of Little House, and to those of the woman who shaped the story, Rose Wilder Lane….

      [Lane] was insightful when writing about real-world politics (“In our ignorance, we could not see that the Kaiser’s Germany and the Communist International were merely two aspects of the Old World’s reaction against the new, the American principle of individual liberty and human rights”), hated the New Deal (“One thing I hate about the New Deal is that it is killing what, to me, is the American pioneering spirit. I simply do not know what to tell my own boys, leaving school and confronting this new world whose ideal is Security and whose practice is dependence upon government instead of upon one’s self”), and argued eloquently that the most valuable commodity in the world is human energy, the most humane policy unleashing that energy.

      If only Melissa Gilbert had been paying attention. Instead she’s carrying the banner of a movement more informed by It Takes a Village, a work that is inferior in every way.

      Like

  4. just what we need. another idiot in Congress.

    Like

  5. If Vox hasn’t jumped the shark before, this clearly qualifies. I can’t think of anything that merits the pejorative “juiceboxer” more.

    “Everybody farts. But here are 9 surprising facts about flatulence you may not know.”

    http://www.vox.com/2014/12/4/7332411/fart-flatulence

    Like

  6. I must admit that I didn’t know that “jump the shark” referred to a moment in TV history.

    Like

  7. “But the data on AGW is Rock.Fucking.Solid!”

    Every time we predict how things will be in 100 years, we’re always right!

    Like

  8. @Brent: “Seriously, what is it with the left and unpaid taxes?”

    Taxes are for *the rich*. You know, the1%. They aren’t rich, otherwise they wouldn’t owe so much money to the IRS!

    Like

  9. “I must admit that I didn’t know that “jump the shark” referred to a moment in TV history.”

    And “nuke the fridge” (from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) means the same thing. Less in use, but it’s there. Usually used in reference to movie franchises.

    You must not have watched enough Happy Days as a child.

    Like

    • KW:

      You must not have watched enough Happy Days as a child.

      I think if you actually caught Fonzi jumping the shark, you watched too much Happy Days as a child.

      Like

  10. @McWing (on science of skipping breakfast): “At 8:30 in the morning for four weeks, one group of subjects got oatmeal, another got frosted corn flakes and a third got nothing. And the only group to lose weight was … the group that skipped breakfast.”

    To be fair, there was never any evidence for this conclusion. It was entirely made up of assumptions. The reality is, when people actually studied it, turns out your body turns up it’s fat metabolism only after you’ve got without eating for an extended period (and then, if you continue to fast for more than 24 hours, turns it down, so 16-to-24 hour fasts tend to be ideal for weight loss).

    The recommendations against cholesterol were entirely correlative—people with clogged arteries who’ve had heart attacks have high cholesterol. Ergo: lower your cholesterol! But that’s not the problem, the problem is your body trying to patch your arteries with cholesterol because there’s not enough of better sources to do the patching with. If you get a diet high in vitamin C and D (or take supplements) and eat your leafy greens it really doesn’t matter how high your cholesterol is, especially if you’ve never had a heart attack. Taking cholesterol meds does nothing for you (according to studies) unless you’ve suffered a heart attack. Even then, most post-heart attack patients start eating better and getting more exercise as part of their strategy for lowering their cholesterol, and I suspect those things have a much bigger impact on their health than pharmaceutically altered cholesterol.

    Cholesterol, along with normal vegetable and animal fats, are what our bodies used to make hormones. Which you need. You’re better off skipping breakfast and having a late lunch of a greasy hamburger topped with an egg and an avocado than you are eating three “balanced” meals of granola). Eating many small meals throughout the day is a terrible idea, but again, it wasn’t any kind of science that went into that conclusion. It’s amazing how much consumer “science” is just anecdotal opinions of folks dressed up like a science project and then assimilated into the public wisdom as a known, scientific fact.

    Type 2 diabetes is generally not a lack of insulin but insanely high insulin resistance. Intermittent fasting a a diet heavy in protein and fats (and exercise!) essentially cures it, and makes you feel better generally.

    Like

  11. @KW – what we call the “no white food” diet?

    Like

  12. I think if you actually caught Fonzi jumping the shark, you watched too much Happy Days as a child.

    I had quit watching Happy Days long before the shark got jumped. The website associated with the phrase because it had a definitive crowd-sourced list of television shows with information about if and when they jumped the shark. Methods of jumping the shark not involving actual sharks included:

    Adding a new child actor to the cast (Cousin Oliver on The Brady Bunch)
    Musical episode
    Consummating romantic tension
    Replacing actors

    The website eventually got bought out and strangled.

    Like

  13. For any Star Wars fans here, I’d recommend the season 2 premier of Star Wars: Rebels on Disney.

    Best writing since the original trilogy, even though it’s animated and James Earl Jones returns as Darth Vader.

    http://www.starwars.com/tv-shows/star-wars-rebels

    Like

    • jnc:

      Best writing since the original trilogy, even though it’s animated and James Earl Jones returns as Darth Vader.

      You don’t like JEJ as DV?

      Like

  14. No, bad use of commas. Should have a second after “It’s animated”

    James Earl Jones returning key to what elevates it above a lot of the recent material, including the prequel trilogy.

    No Jar Jar equivalent at all.

    Like

  15. Methods of jumping the shark not involving actual sharks included:

    – getting preachy (think of what Alan Alda did to Mash or the WKRP episode after the Who concert)

    Like

  16. @Scott: Apparently Half Pint liked Guiliani. Although if you lived in Manhattan in the 90s, you loved Guiliani as it was a magical place to be..

    Like

  17. @Brent: What about Ellen? It was a funny show, then Ellen came out as a lesbian and almost every show was about how bad I was for not being a lesbian. About as preachy as it got.

    Like

  18. @ScottC: “I think if you actually caught Fonzi jumping the shark, you watched too much Happy Days as a child.”

    I did, but by that time I thought the show was lame, and was only watching it because it was what was on TV. Or my sister was watching it. I forget. It was a long time ago.

    @markinaustin:

    “@KW – what we call the “no white food” diet?”

    Well, carbs are not the best source of energy, especially in large amounts. Still, the larger points are: eat your fruits and vegetables (or supplement). Natural fats are not bad for you. You can pretty much trust your natural desire for salt in most cases. There’s nothing natural nor superior to eating three squares a day. Skipping breakfast or fasting on a regular basis is good for you. If you eat carbs, don’t eat ’em for breakfast.

    Like

  19. @Kevin… don’t know.. stopped watching TV around 94 or so…

    Like

    • Thoughts on this abortion debate’s framing?

      Rehash of the familiar, acute insight into the obvious, confuses legal rights with natural rights, but certainly factually sound. The argument in legal terms was never a question of when life began but when was one a person under the fourteenth amendment. Thus Henry Wade argued for Dallas County that personhood should be granted at conception, when prior law had granted it at birth.

      I heard Scalia twenty years ago point out the dangers inherent in the argument that personhood exists before birth. He suggested that a pregnant undoc would claim she was carrying an American citizen, if the plain words of the 14th were ignored and the word “conceived” subbed for the word “born”.

      Like

      • Mark:

        Rehash of the familiar, acute insight into the obvious, confuses legal rights with natural rights, but certainly factually sound.

        There was no confusion between legal and natural rights. At no point did the author ever venture into the realm of legal rights. (BTW, if the fact that human life begins at conception is so obvious – and I agree it is – why do you suppose so many pro-chioceers are loathe to admit it?)

        The argument in legal terms was never a question of when life began but when was one a person under the fourteenth amendment.

        I don’t think this is at all correct. The legal issue has never been whether or not unborn babies are protected by the constitution, but rather whether the states have the constitutional power to regulate the practice of abortion or whether such regulation represents an infringement on the constitutional rights of those who would seek an abortion, ie women. From a legal perspective the constitutional status of the unborn has never been an issue, at least not with regard to Roe and Casey, the two primary SCOTUS decisions that currently dictate our national abortion policy.

        If you were correct, then the question would have been whether or not abortion must be disallowed at a national level, not whether or not it must be allowed at a national level.

        Like

    • McWing:

      Thoughts on this abortion debate’s framing?

      The author is exactly correct, and is saying the same thing that I have been arguing here at ATiM for years…that the relevant issue is a moral/philosophical issue regarding when rights inhere in human beings.

      He is wrong about one thing, though.

      Pro-choice partisans routinely admit this fact [that embryos are a living member of the human species}.

      We had (and still have, I think) pro-choicers right here at ATiM who refuse to admit, or at least hedge on, this plain biological fact. (See here, here, and here.)

      Like

  20. When, in your opinion, does personhood begin?

    Like

    • George, for Constitutional purposes, at birth. The Supremes extended it to “viability”, however, which has the “seeds” of extending it to right after conception contained within it as bioengineering advances. See what I did there?

      Scott – I quote from the opinion:

      A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      Without the 14th A. hook, the whole case would have collapsed, rather obviously. This was a big part of Henry Wade’s brief – fetuses are persons.

      Like

      • Mark:

        Without the 14th A. hook, the whole case would have collapsed, rather obviously. This was a big part of Henry Wade’s brief – fetuses are persons.

        It seems to me that what the opinion is saying is that if a fetus is indeed a person, then the appellant’s (ie Roe’s) case collapses, not that the appellee’s (ie Wade’s) case collapses if a fetus is not a person. There is no reason to think, and as far as I know the Court never asserted, that a state cannot constitutionally regulate or prohibit abortion simply because a fetus is not a person.

        To be sure, a determination that a fetus is not a person under the constitution is a necessary condition to justify Roe and the national legal abortion policy that it spawned, but it isn’t even remotely close to being a sufficient condition. That fact that an embryo or fetus is not a constitutionally protected “person” hardly means that a state’s claim over the power to prohibit abortion “collapses”.

        Like

      • Mark:

        The Supremes extended it to “viability”…

        When did it do this? I am doubtful that it has, simply because if it were true, then all abortions post-viability would necessarily be prohibited throughout the nation, and they are not.

        Like

        • We can agree that this “personhood” argument is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition, when read in favor of abortion.

          The sufficient condition is supplied by the additional, and MUCH weaker, argument that the mother’s 14th A. rights trump the fetus’s non rights until viability. Then, if you invest the mama with those rights, at the point where neither mother nor fetus has a 14th A. trump card over the other, the states are free to regulate. The balance of mother-fetus rights is then up to the states.

          I am not making the argument, just reporting it.

          Like

        • Mark:

          We can agree that this “personhood” argument is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition, when read in favor of abortion.

          Right. So are we agreed that Wade’s case does not “collapse” simply because a fetus is not a constitutionally protected person?

          I am not making the argument, just reporting it.

          I understand. I was just reacting to your previous claim that “The argument in legal terms was never a question of when life began but when was one a person under the fourteenth amendment.” I don’t think this really identifies the real questions that were litigated and which resulted in our current abortion regime. Prior to Roe there was no legal dispute about whether or not a fetus was a constitutionally protected “person”, nor was it an issue afterwards. Everyone understood then, and continues to understand now, that a fetus is not a constitutionally protected person. The real question in Roe (and subsequent rulings) was whether or not a state has the constitutional power to regulate or prohibit abortion.

          BTW, if it were ever ruled that a fetus is a constitutionally protected “person”, then the idea that abortion could be regulated at the state level would be just as dead as it is was under Roe, since such a ruling would demand consistent treatment of the issue nationally. That being the case, and since most efforts to overturn Roe are aimed at returning the issue back to the states, I don’t think the “personhood” issue is a particularly crucial or disputed legal question.

          Like

        • Scott, the Roe case collapses, obviously. What are you talking about?

          Like

        • Mark:

          Scott, the Roe case collapses, obviously. What are you talking about?

          When you said “Without the 14th A. hook, the whole case would have collapsed, rather obviously,” I understood you to be saying that Wade’s case would collapse if his argument that the 14th applied to a fetus was rejected. The Roe argument collapses with, not without, the 14th amendment “hook” of “personhood”.

          Like

        • BTW, Mark, I remain interested in when/where the court extended “personhood” for constitutional protection purposes to the point of viability. I wasn’t aware that it had done so.

          Like

        • Scott – from the opinion –

          Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
          -snip-
          This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this “compelling” point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

          With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

          Before viability, no 14th rights for state to weigh on behalf of fetus, but after, state may weigh fetus’s 14th A rights against those which Supremes found exist in mama.

          Court could have stayed consistent with words and precedent by finding no fetal interest against mama until live birth, of course, but they tried to be Solomonic.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Before viability, no 14th rights for state to weigh on behalf of fetus, but after, state may weigh fetus’s 14th A rights against those which Supremes found exist in mama.

          The citation does not suggest to me that unborn but viable babies have been granted “personhood” for the purposes of 14th A protections. Not only is the 14th A or “personhood” not even mentioned, but if it were the case, then there would be no “may” about it. The state would have to provide equal protection from intentional destruction to a viable unborn baby. The fact that a state not only “may” choose not to provide such protection, and is even prohibited from doing so in certain circumstances suggests to me that no such “personhood” or 14th A argument is being forwarded.

          Given that animal cruelty laws exist and are constitutional even though animals are not protected as “persons” under the 14th A, surely a state’s interest in protecting unborn humans is not dependent upon defining them as “persons” under the 14th amendment.

          Like

        • Scott, you seem to miss the balancing and weighing against mother’s rights part of the argument. But I don’t have any more time. I would understand this if it is because you have trouble giving weight to the mother’s interest as 14th A protected – I find that troublesome, but I understand what they did.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Scott, you seem to miss the balancing and weighing against mother’s rights part of the argument.

          I don’t at all, but the balancing and weighing is irrelevant to the question. What you seem to miss is the fact that the 14th commands equal protection, rather than simply allowing it. A SCOTUS ruling that says a state “may” choose (and so, by implication, may also choose not) to protect a viable unborn baby cannot sensibly be read as an application of the 14th’s equal protection clause.

          Note also that the citation says that it is the state’s self-perceived interest in protecting “potential life”, not the recognized rights of the unborn itself, that justifies allowing (again, not commanding, but allowing) the state to implement protections. Again, such a thing cannot sensibly be read to be granting 14th A rights to the viable unborn. (I wish it could be.)

          I would understand this if it is because you have trouble giving weight to the mother’s interest as 14th A protected…

          You’ve made such an accusation in the past. It seems to be your go-to ad hominem against me whenever we discuss abortion. But as has been the case in the past, in this instance introducing the fact that the mother may have interests worth protecting, or even rights under the 14th that are worth protecting, while true, is neither here nor there when it comes to the question we are examining, in this case whether the court has granted 14th A rights to the viable unborn.

          Had the court ruled that a state must protect a viable unborn baby, while at the same time granting exceptions in the event that such protection conflicts with rights of the mother, then it might be reasonable to suggest that the court has recognized that the viable unborn have constitutional rights. But since the decision to protect the unborn remains a choice that states are allowed to make or not (even if such protection would not conflict with rights of the mother), it simply can’t be that such protection derives from a recognition that the constitutional rights apply to the unborn.

          You seem to think that the state’s interest in protecting the unborn can only derive from a recognition of 14th A rights. Hence, when the court recognized that interest, you assume that it implies court recognition of 14th A rights even though the court never actually mentioned such a thing. I think a state’s interest in protecting the unborn can exist even if the unborn are not protected by the 14th…and I think it is plain they are not.

          Like

        • Scott – I see your point.

          Like

  21. Thanks Mark! Just curious though when you think (if ever) a fetus becomes a person in regards to the 14th Amendment?

    Like

    • George, do you mean what do I think “ought” to be or what does the 14th A say?

      We can all read what it says. “Born.”

      What I think “ought” to be is when docs and bioengineers say they can save a healthy fetus outside the womb it ought to be saved. I think Scott and I have agreed that when this argument is no longer about forcing women to incubate fetuses they don’t want it will be incredibly difficult for anyone to favor destroying a healthy fetus.

      By healthy, I mean to exclude fetuses that have no medical chance to grow into independent beings because of untreatable maladies. But that would leave me in favor of keeping Down Syndrome fetuses alive, for example. Do I think Tay-Sachs fetuses should be kept alive? No.
      The line drawing for me would get real tough, if I were God.

      So my choices about what to do with fetuses that can be raised outside their rejecting mothers would cost our child protection and charitable services greatly and we would need to raise lots of donations and also encourage lots of adoptions.

      Not being God, and not having to deal with this at a personal level, I now resign the commission you gave me.

      Like

  22. Based on your 14th A argument, it seems that states have the flexibility to ensure equal protection should they choose too. Doesn’t the Amendment compel states to ensure EP?

    Like

  23. I don’t have time to read the entire thread right now but I freaked out on Kevin’s conclusions with this…………..

    You’re better off skipping breakfast and having a late lunch of a greasy hamburger topped with an egg and an avocado than you are eating three “balanced” meals of granola). Eating many small meals throughout the day is a terrible idea, but again, it wasn’t any kind of science that went into that conclusion.

    Kevin……It doesn’t matter when you eat, it matters what you eat in regards to balancing carbs, fat and protein based on any medical conditions or dietary needs.

    Seriously…everyone is different in regards to their daily consumption and timing of meals to get the most out of their calories for exercise or dietary needs and hunger signals. I know I eat most of my calories before noon…………..mostly because all of my exercise is early in the morning. I really think meal timing isn’t important at all except as an individual preference…

    And BTW, granola is filled with sugar and sometimes a bit too much fat……….hardly balanced!

    Like

  24. I’m more a calorie in / calorie out believer. When and how you balance carbs/protein may have a marginal benefit but in the end if you take I less than you burn you lose.

    Like

  25. McWing

    I’m more a calorie in / calorie out believer.

    Totally agree. The problem arises when people try to eat that greasy hamburger at noon and suddenly realize that they exceeded not only their calories but their fat macros for the day and low and behold they’re still hungry……

    I’m a believer in finding calories that fill you up, if you’re trying to lose weight, or calories that give you energy, if you’re trying to beat that last Max dead lift………LOL

    But then again I’m not trying to lose weight, just trying to increase the lbs I can lift and the speed I can swim laps….:)

    Like

  26. Agreed, lms, the “feeling sated” aspect of nutrition is probably #1 cause of yo yo ing.

    Like

  27. McWing, not just yo yo ing but binging also…….

    The main thing I’ve learned the last couple of years with having a couple of knowledgeable trainers (yes….I know I got lucky) is how important eating enough is when you’re exercising.

    I come from the other end of the spectrum (trying to gain weight) but I had no idea how many calories I was burning daily….and my trainer tells me that most of the women he trains are committed to under eating……….weird…….and then they wonder why they can’t lift a 120 lb dead lift????

    I’m eating upwards of 2000 cals a day now………..crazy!!!!

    Like

    • Kevin Williamson on Chris Cuomo and abortion, impressive as usual, and not only because he makes the same point I have tried to make repeatedly here at ATiM.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422414/chris-cuomo-medievalist-human-conception

      About that: One of the great successes of the abortion-rights movement is that it has convinced the world that support for abortion is a “women’s issue,” intentionally obscuring the fact that abortion views have not been strongly correlated with sex. In the 2004 Gallup survey, the male-female split among those identifying as “pro-choice” was 42–56. In the next poll, it was 49–47 — more men identified as “pro-choice.” In 2009, it was 39–44, and the year after it was 47–42. By way of comparison, party affiliation is a much stronger indicator than sex, with Democrats choosing the pro-choice label between two and three times more often than Republicans. The data suggest that identifying as pro-choice isn’t a women’s issue but a Democrats’ issue. Again, don’t expect Chris Cuomo to understand this.

      Like

    • lms:

      I’m eating upwards of 2000 cals a day now………..crazy!!!!

      I beat that at breakfast.

      Like

  28. @lmsinca: “Kevin……It doesn’t matter when you eat, it matters what you eat in regards to balancing carbs, fat and protein based on any medical conditions or dietary needs.”

    Oh, it *definitely* matters when you eat. Where you are in the digestion process has a significant effect on hormones like cortisol and leptin, which are important for fat metabolism (and many other hormones) that ultimately effect mood. Yes, medical conditions must be considered and so should gender (as a weight loss, muscle gain strategy, regular intermittent fasting works much better for guys than gals, but it works to some degree for almost everybody . . . certain medical conditions excluded). Physical activity is also important.

    But when you eat matters. Having an extended period of fasting allows you to metabolize fat more efficiently than eating three squares a day or six small meals. Radical calorie reduction also helps with a lot of other things, and it works better when your calories are all consumed in a narrow time window.

    Intermittent fasting increases HGH. Google “intermittent fasting”. There’s lots of material out there in the Interwebz. And I think there will be a lot more in the future.

    ” I really think meal timing isn’t important at all except as an individual preference…”

    Ultimately, it’s up to you. And if your problem is gaining weight then you do not need to fast, although an underweight guy wanting to bulk up would be wise to do intermittent fasting (but consume more calories during their eating window, especially in the form of fats and proteins). With women the results are more mixed regarding IF, although there are women who swear by it.

    I just know I’ve done it and it works insanely well. Unless I fall off the wagon, in which case it’s a huge pain in the ass to go through the acclimatization phase again. Takes about two weeks before it’s producing results, and before my appetite is under control again. However, once it is:

    “The problem arises when people try to eat that greasy hamburger at noon and suddenly realize that they exceeded not only their calories but their fat macros for the day and low and behold they’re still hungry……”

    This just doesn’t happen to me. And I’ve lived all my life with an *extremely* rapacious appetite. The difference being, I’ll be eating that greasy hamburger for dinner or, at the very least, after 2:00 PM. I’ll stop eating by 8:00 pm or so, and won’t eat again until 2:00 PM the next day. And I’m not hungry in the interim, but it takes about two-weeks to get there, and it only takes a vacation week of tasty breakfasts and 12:00 pm lunches to reset my appetite to normal (i.e., make me fat and lazy) levels. In the meantime (while doing IF), I’m adding strength and muscle and burning fat. And I feel better and have more energy.

    The caveat being that when I fall of the wagon (and, on vacations or in extreme situations, like my house move in December, I do) it can be a huge, weight-gaining struggle to get back on the wagon. The two-weeks adjustment period is hard to get through, even though I know it will ease up as long as I do about 14 straight days of intermittent fasting and take it easy on the cheat days (usually Sunday).

    BTW, I do intermittent fasting by doing it at least 5 days a week and 6 if I can where I only eat between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm. Then have a cheat day on Sunday where I’ll eat breakfast and lunch at normal times, then stop at 8:00. After I’ve been doing it for a month or two I’ll throw in some 24 hour (dinner-to-dinner) fasts, usually on Monday after a cheat day, but that’s not something to do during the first month.

    Other people do it by just having fasting windows twice a week, but eating less generally. Others do it with a single 24 hour fast in a week or every two weeks, or two days a week where they eat around 500 calories or a little less in a day. My best results were when I was doing a 6 day intermittent fast with a wider eating window on Saturdays (first meal around noon) and a cheat day on Sunday followed by a 24 hour fast on monday (dinner Sunday to dinner Monday). Then just eating between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm Tuesday-Friday.

    Best eating structure I’ve ever done. Again, the problem is getting back to it is difficult if I spend a week or more not doing it. Making it easy to backslide if I get off it.

    Like

  29. @ScottC1: “About that: One of the great successes of the abortion-rights movement is that it has convinced the world that support for abortion is a “women’s issue,” intentionally obscuring the fact that abortion views have not been strongly correlated with sex. In the 2004 Gallup survey, the male-female split among those identifying as “pro-choice” was 42–56. In the next poll, it was 49–47 — more men identified as “pro-choice.” In 2009, it was 39–44, and the year after it was 47–42. By way of comparison, party affiliation is a much stronger indicator than sex, with Democrats choosing the pro-choice label between two and three times more often than Republicans. The data suggest that identifying as pro-choice isn’t a women’s issue but a Democrats’ issue. ”

    Always been one of my points about the War on Women. Even in the latest Gallup poll (first to fine a majority of folks pro-choice in 7 years), it says this: Majority of women, 54%, now pro-choice, vs. 46% of men.

    Which means that 46% of women are pro-life. Or, statistically, half the female population of the US is pro-life, thus half of them are also conducting a “War on Women” . . . the argument that men can’t speak to abortion since they can’t get pregnant seems to run into a difficulty here, as one would assume that the 46% of women that presently identify as pro-life are allowed to speak to the issue.

    Naturally, it doesn’t break down the numbers but I would assume the majority of pro-life women are also mothers, and some sort of majority (probably not as large) of pro-choice women are childless. And I expect many of the pro-choice men are childless and/or single and probably actively dating. I think it’s one of those issues where context matters a lot to people, one of the reason there’s (thus far) a constantly shifting boundary where folks become more pro-choice or more pro-life, depending on age and demographics (and as we have baby-booms and baby-busts, who is at what stage of their life when, and how many of them there are, varies, and I think that impacts the pro-life/pro-choice numbers every time there’s a new poll).

    Like

  30. BTW, Arnold Schwarzenegger has incorporated intermittent fasting into his body building regimen since he left the governorship. It seems to be working well for him!

    Like

  31. @lmsinca: “and my trainer tells me that most of the women he trains are committed to under eating”

    Women shouldn’t under eat when training. The can fast, especially if they want to build muscle, but they shouldn’t under consume calories, especially fats and proteins. And best to get carbs post workout. But . . . I’ve never been one to go for all my carbs in a post workout shake, although that’s what IF trainers recommend.

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: