In "Monkeys pay to see female monkey bottoms"

So I don't read every story ever posted to MoFi - shoot me. Anyway, it's a different article about the same study, ever so sorry to waste your precious time, I repent and promise to never do it again, etc, etc. Now, where is my juice?

In "The city of Krakow is seeing a huge revival of Jewish culture. "

[blatant self-link] I've sort of bloged about this phenomenon when I got back from my trip to Krakow a few months ago. Here it is, complete with a representative photo from Kazimierz.

In "Direct Creative"

This experiment was done by AIR years ago. This looks like the same article just reprinted by author at a new URL. The original can be found at good stuff, all of it.

In " Protein linked to heart disease"

I still don't get this. As I read the news article, there is NO link between high-protein, low-carb diet and occurrence of that particular protein which may have a role in heart disease. No link at all. So, why is everyone bashing Atkins in comments? It makes no sense. Protein-rich diets do not have a 1st degree causal collection to expression of vast majority of body protein. The article said nothing to indicate that this particular protein was an exception to the rule. It's like... reading an article about volvo opening a new fab plant, and then everyone starts talking about how Queentin Tarantino just doesn't make movies the way he used to. Where is the link? Or is it just that everyone was antsy to have another "Atkins is bad" thread, and this link just came along? On preview: I guess much of the blame should rest with blankx23 who gave the post a completely misleading title.

genial, your comment makes no sense. A protein is any sequence of amino acid molecules. Different proteins do all sorts of different things in your body. They hold your cells together, they aid in cell replication, move organelles around, transport nutrients and waste in and out of cells, provide nuclear envelope stability, the list goes on. Think of it this way: your DNA stores information about how your body is supposed to be; proteins make it all actually work (a gene is nothing more than instructions for creating a certain type of protein). So, no two proteins are exactly alike. This study is pointing out an apparent link between a particular kind of protein and heart disease. This protein is manufactured from your DNA, and that gene's rate of expression is absolutely not affected by how much protein you actually eat. When you ingest some protein-rich food, all that happens is your digestive system breaks them down into component amino acids, which are then used for fuel (nice high energy bonds there), or reused directly. The point is, the rate at which you consume protein-rich foods has absolutely no bearing on how much of this potentially dangerous protein your body creates. So Atkins-bashing is inappropriate and ignorant (for the record, I think Atkins is bad, bad, bad for you - but this is not why). Nutrition 101 note: there are a total of 20 amino acids. Our bodies are perfectly adept at manufacturing 12 of these internally, but the other 8 it must obtain from outside (these are called essential amino acids). This is why we have to eat protein. If we could produce all 20 internally, we'd have no need for outside protein as long as we could obtain energy and any special atoms required for synthesis (for example we need a certain amount of phosphorus to get most any ATP-fueled reaction going).

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)