The Reported Death of Peak Oil Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
If done correctly very close down spacing can result in greater overall productivity, and at a lower cost. Un ordinateur était donc clairement un équipement informatique. There are 15, new wells out there that will still keep on producing. I think I will. Is it the same?
stay on the cutting edge
If you want it to be a science, then you have to first disprove what the industry is saying. I have noticed, that no one here is actually doing that. All the recent mega activity at this site just seems to be one big cover up of the fact, that all your great PO theories got shot to shit with the recent fall in oil price due to over production from US shale.
Sorry, but that is not how terminal decline plays out in the world of reality. That will really mess up Mrs. Your numbers are way too far out for me. But, more than four years ago, CLR estimated 24 billion boe recoverable. But, the Bakken is still Ghawar sized, so you can eventually expect Ghawar sized production.
As to the number of eventual wells, try starting at ,, and go up from there. In the 4, square mile CLR designated sweet spot, their plan is for 16 wells per square mile in four different zones which means acre spacing. Then, we can start communicating. Is an average EUR of , net bbl of oil per well accurate in the Bakken? I have read on this site that ,ooo gross bbl EUR is more probable overall in the Bakken, although I am sure if people have agendas they can skew the numbers.
Trying to figure out what is accurate and what is not is more difficult than what you let on, IMO. It does appear that substantially lower oil prices may provide some answers. The , number is BOE, so that does make a difference. This is the second cut they have announced in about 3 months. For the whole year. Avg flow year 1 is about bpd?
Maybe Warren Buffett will do what he did for BoA. That comes out to more than 1. The current low oil price environment is easily weathered by simply high grading. Any company with similar property can do the same. But, many of the newer, smaller Bakken dotcoms have no such property, so their very existence is in great danger. I mostly just repeat what is generally accepted knowledge about the shale industry, because no one has so far been able to prove any of it to be wrong.
So at what cost does oil have to be produced in the future? Where are we find this oil? So where do we get the oil when the better shale zones are drilled and declining? Enno Peters collects data on all North Dakota wells from the NDIC, the EUR of the average Bakken well between and is about kb of oil, if you add in natural gas and convert to barrels of oil equivalent boe , it increases to kboe, but note that the extra 80 kboe is very low value relative to crude.
Note that the typical well in an investor presentation is not the same as an average well. Maybe CLR only drills above average wells. Besides that, they sound about right to me. But you need to be careful about getting too hung up in the word or concept of average. After all, what do you think is the average gender in the US in Dec.
Investor presentations ALWAYS show their best results, and almost never reveal all the failures, that bring their averages down. This is just business as usual. But, it is okay because they are always moving up the learning curve, so by showing their best results now, they are giving a clear indication of where they expect their average results to one day be. Also, if you want to understand this industry, it does no good to focus on average companies, you need to look at the leaders, because they are the trend setters.
Ultimately everything is based upon best practices, and EOG is presently the undisputed best at everything. Therefore, I still get most of my info from CLR. This sentence of yours is not as silly as you might think. It is because they use their standard well as a measuring stick. Now they have a fixed point for reference to compare different areas of the Bakken. Then everyone at this website will be able to move forward.
Continental wells with first month of output between Jan and Oct have an average cumulative output over 70 months of kb, this is slightly below the average Bakken well over the same period for all wells completed wells. The EUR is more in the kb range for the average Continental well. I wonder if they have run flow meters to check how much flow they get from the toe of a 10 thousand foot lateral.
You seem to follow this closely, are those wells slugging? Dennis, sometimes very long wells in three phase flow can have phase segregation in the horizontal section. This causes liquid slugs to accumulate, which tend to move up the well in slug flow. This can be avoided by placing the heel higher than the toe. And I was wondering if they had sensors to confirm the toe is producing. I came to the same conclusion as you Dennis.
The Continental wells are actually bellow average. I have attached a graph showing the production profile for Continental wells from January to October I also included the average Bakken well profile for for reference. So why should we then believe in anything they tell us? I have learned that you should never ever trust in what companies tell in their presentations.
Especially not smaller companies which are dependent on cheap credits. It is actually quite disturbing that companies can make such exaggerations and get away with it. I however agree with you Carl that there are still drillable locations left in sweetspots. But perhaps some companies start to run out of them. That would affect total Bakken output, which I am mostly interested in. The average Bakken well is shown for comparison. Companies with more than wells over the chosen period are presented below.
Must have wells in other areas which bring the average way down. I wish TX reported by well as opposed to by lease. Would be really interesting to see the same info for EFS and Permian horizontal wells.
I guess they assume the wells will produce bbl per day for 25 years. Will be interesting to see if they do. This is where I got the data for the bar chart.
QEP energy is the high well profile and OXY is the low well profile, the middle dashed line is the average well profile for all companies including those not presented in the chart. Dollar a bit strong across the board. The underlying Three Forks formation has at least two or three productive layers that the USGS actually claims to be larger in recoverable hydrocarbons than even the middle Bakken. If Shania walked in, room would be made garonteeed.
So we drilled and fracked a lot of laterals. Then we are going to shut down. For a year or three. But down there 10, feet we have four counties that have been pin cushioned and nanopores down there having been subjected to yrs of explosion type vibrations. And there are lots and lots of empty pores now, from wells drilled and emptied. The pressure is gone. Much more important, those areas not yet drilled are losing their oil.
No one well will have enough in it to warrant going after it? Truth is I have no idea. My gut feeling is you could come back and carry on. But your opinion is as good as mine. Meanwhile keep doing your stuff. Watcher, one quick comment before I go to work, its never good to frac a well then shut it in.
I know that is true in fractured carbonates and other tight sandstones, it must be true for shale also. Natural micro fractures in shale are expanded and filled with proppant during the frac process; they will closed back if the well is not produced. At that depth there is over burden forces that cause proppant to embed into the shale also closing the fractures.
Might they be doing that to increase frac radiuses and URR on a given unit…to keep from having to drill in between wells? Whooptie to doo on the stacked horizon thing. Not so good, I hear. Time to give up the ghost. Time for the shale oil biz to tell it like it is. Mike, both you, I and anyone can get precise scaling from your graphic by clicking on the above Mr. It contains a ton of info — including physical locations — of every well drilled in the state going back to the fifties.
The issue of mimimally effective spacing between wells is an ongoing quest with companies like Carrizo claiming success with foot spacing in the Niobrara. Best wishes and best of luck to you all. The actual production of oil wells is highly influenced by all the natural low grade seismic activity going on in their area.
Fracking is just artificial low grade seismic activity, and there is considerable evidence out there, that fracking actually improves overall oil production, if there is well communication going on within specific zones. But, so far no one wants well communication going on between two different zones, because it would be too difficult to monitor and control.
If done correctly very close down spacing can result in greater overall productivity, and at a lower cost. That is, after all, why it is done. Would you consider doing some homework on this issue?
I am sitting on a rig right now trying to get home to see my family for Christmas, Mr. Whatever you have to say about it comes straight off a shale oil website, or quarterly report, anyway. I have heard it all before. There must be a press package to download somewhere. The point that you wish to make, I think, is that I have it all wrong, as do a lot of people that post here often, about shale oil. It is everything shale oil companies say it is, that you say it is, and much more.
It is geology and has nothing to do with shale oil companies. All the rocks on planet earth are in constant slow motion. The proof of this can be seen in oil production. In any given area, or well, it is not at all steady. You can easily see how oil production jumps in all the wells in a given area, when a minor seismic event occurs nearby.
Are you suggesting micro seismic events increase or decrease well productivity? Of course there is always background activity as well as diurnal tidal rock formation flexing. If you wish to pursue this I recommend: Stress Waves in Solids by Kolsky, a readable work on wave propagation in non-elastic solids.
I have a theoretical outline for pressure pulse effects in heavy oil displacement I may publish one of these days. I have not seen that in 50 years of doing this stuff. We were not talking about induced seismic pulsation or vibration down casing, that sort of thing. I have experienced that theory; in clastic sands and fractured carbonates it did not work.
Martin, by the way, you have the manners of a goat. That is how I feed my family and the families of my employees. In other words, I have to invest my money into my beliefs, my money where my mouth is, so to speak.
You just got embarrassed with some real data. Indeed there are lots of straws to still get stuck in sweet spots, big deal. I believe, and several very smart people believe, that sweet spots are being depleted. Why would they drill wells perpendicular to each other? Have you guys discussed the well productivity versus the way the horizontal leg is pointed? I think this corresponds to stress fractures in the rock. Mike, that sure makes sense for the Eagle Ford.
I was referring to the Bakken well layouts. Reference the vibes and pulsing, I think it depends on the reservoir. Pulsing works with highly viscous oils if the reservoir is being flooded. I saw some odd results for vibration but that may have been fake data put out by a promoter. But none of this is from natural seismicity. A few people have mentioned higher density drilling in the Bakken and the layers of the Three Forks which might be exploited.
The Continental Hawkinson well data is available which is a poster child for higher well density more wells per square mile. Note that the first Hawkinson well was drilled in the three Forks and started producing in Feb and was very productive kb over first 24 months , two more wells started producing in Sept one in middle Bakken and one in Three Forks. All three of these wells look like they were refracked by Sept when 11 more wells started producing as part of the high density experiment.
Early wells were averaged together by month from first output, the early wells are the first 3 wells which started producing Sept or earlier. Later wells are the 11 wells which started producing in Sept 7 are Three Forks wells, 3 are middle Bakken, and one is not labelled. Chart with individual Hawkinson wells, the indication is that higher density drilling will reduce the average well output, despite what the investor presentations might suggest.
Seems to me the key to this business is to batch drill and complete multiwell pads, use liners, gas lift, design surface systems for Barrels of fluid per day, keep things simple, automate, keep things simp,e, widen spacing and negotiate hard to lower costs.
They also need pipelines. Electric transportation, biofuels and synthetic fuels would work just fine… A Nissan Leaf is the cheapest vehicle on the road to own and operate with the tax credit! This is strikingly true of planetary culture today….
The fallacy of this belief is becoming clearer to more people. More and more, this is what people understand as collapse…. Have I got that right, Il? Inner nature is as ravaged as outer nature.
The collapse of human connectedness has opened the door to unimaginable phenomena among lonely human populations. The extinction of species, melting polar ice, vanishing ecosystems, etc. Fukushima, acidifying oceans, Monsanto, fracking, disappearing bees, ad infinitum. Even rather more prosaic aspects of civilization are in decline.
In fact, civilization is failing on every level, in every sphere, and its failure equates so largely with the failure of technology. They, like you, expect total collapse. If that is the case, I might as well not bother wasting whatever time I have left to read what you guys write. I have also already mentioned permaculture. But that depends on many things. For a second, I thought you already started not doing so.
Peak oil is, in a sense, almost small potatoes. If the world collapses, what is your point? At any rate, if you guys believe there is nothing to do, you are all kind of irrelevant because we can ignore you and still face the same outcome.
Growing up, smartening up , and permaculture for starters. And suggesting some for us, yourself. I might crap on this Dystem, but I do endeavor to walk the talk. How do you plan to introduce it beyond where it is already being done? How do you plan to phase out both fossil fuels and renewable energy projects and what timetable are you shooting for? Make no mistake — this is simply a more sophisticated approach to agriculture.
Electric transportation, biofuels and synthetic fuels would work just fine. My personal verdict is not yet out, and probably never will be, with regard to permaculture, nor with the human species.
Which brings us to a basic question: He attacks her at every opportunity as she refutes everything he denies. Seeing as my time is more limited than yours seems to be paid?
So no lightening-up or kisses? Perhaps Freud would think you were projecting? I mean, we can leave that to maybe you and the office drones on the way, in their fossil-fuel-constructed-large-scale-centralized-governpimp-controlled-on-rolling-blackout-grid-powered shit-box Toyota Priapuses or is that Priapi?
Oh yes, I got you another quote-prezzie, since you seemed less than enthused by Twain. Try this on, see if it fits: They do build usable manure though, unlike one-trick-pony Nissan Leaf-blowers, and you can get around on them, even when the governpimps and their pimped-out infrastructures fade into the anals of history.
Do you believe there are too many of us to go without the inputs of fossil fuels and the technology which boosts agricultural production? We are also draining aquifers awfully fast to feed everyone. Most of our farmland may have already been degraded beyond the ability for permaculture to substitute for existing practices. Permaculture is something and among what we will probably have to try anyway, like a life-preserver thrown to us.
Its practitioners seem to think that good, healthy soil can be regenerated from despoiled with some proper care, insight, understanding, knowledge and wisdom.
If we replaced grains with nuts in our diet permaculture would be very easy. The nut trees would soak up a lot of CO2 emissions. We are not all doomed. But I was wondering where you think we will be getting million barrels of oil per day in ? Just list a few locations, please. With the growth of renewables, I doubt we would be needing very much oil in I believe we ARE running out of oil.
On the other hand renewables as we have today are much more expensive. This tells me we ought to be more efficient using oil, and put more cash into renewable energy research and development.
Right now I have no idea if a solution will be found. My assumption is that people will do something. So talking about alternatives is a reasonable thing to do. The EIA recently estimated an additional billion barrels of tight oil. Solar will reach grid parity in all US states in a few years. With an increasing number of electric, and hybrid electric vehicles also reducing demand. These are huge gains for renewables over just a few years ago. They are competitive in many places on a marketplace basis, and less expensive if you include external costs.
So are all your friends, relatives, etc. Yet still people do bother. Seems to me death should bother people more than collapse. More inevitable and more final. I get frustrated with people who shoot down all ideas and only want to focus on collapse. Collapse IS the answer to the predicament humans currently find themselves in.
BAU cannot continue without the concentrated energy that fossil fuels provide. Thermodynamics say so, and their word tends to be pretty final. I focus on collapse so that those around me might mentally prepare themselves for a massively lower quality of life — lessen the shock to the system as it were. Men in particular cope badly with a sudden reduction in circumstances; if I can prevent a few suicides by mentally preparing folks then all the better.
We slow down global warming by collapsing the economy — it might still be too little too late though. Maybe you should show how , terawatts could have built the world without fossil fuels , 7.
King Hubbert claimed Solar Power could replace fossil fuels. Are you saying Hubbert was wrong about that? Yes and he could have said the moon was made of green cheese too, so what. He claimed nuclear was the answer. Do you say he was wrong about that? Well, sure, I was having a little bit of fun, like Watcher often does. Uhhmmm…how could the world run on ,TW? Well, transportation could run on electricity pretty well. Ethanol can provide some, as well. Synthetic fuel would be rather more expensive at least out of pocket , but the scale would be much smaller, so it would be affordable.
That gives us 1, TW. Now, divide 1, TW by 7B people, and you get one megawatt. Now, compare that to the roughly. Increases in efficiency, and implementation of alternatives will prevent any sort of energy based collapse.
The extreme boomers believe at as soon as BAU ends, homo sapiens face extinction. I see no reason to believe that. Because I expect that hardships to hit different areas and different groups of people at different rates and levels of severity, I think some people will survive. I think it is reasonable to consider alternatives to an oil-fueled lifestyle.
I suspect that most of us doomers look at the megadeaths involved in an energy constrained future the way I do: I see the suffering and shortened lives of billions of people. I see a continuation of the system we have- because it means years more life for those who can play the system. My dad is 90, and my father-in-law is The average life expectancy in Industrial society has essentially given them 2 lifetimes.
The real issue, as far as broad social change to meet an energy-constrained future in an equitable way globally, is whether you can persuade a majority of North Americans that they should live shorter lives. Second, the feedbacks from energy shortages are very immediate. Prices go up, marginally useful consumption goes down immediately. The real problem is the long lag times from CO2 emissions, combined with determined resistance from the investors who would lose a great deal of money if carbon in the ground became worthless.
Hundreds of thousands have had their electricity turned off because they can no longer afford it. Meanwhile also look at Australia. But that is my point. But for others to make it, they will have to adjust.
And I think they will. If not by choice, then by necessity. The advantage localization is that if we show there are benefits within a local area, we might be able to persuade those people to make changes for themselves, if not the world. For example, the advantage of solar is that one becomes less dependent on centralized power generation and transmission. There are benefits for individual communities, so they might be persuaded to pursue that path.
Not because it reduces global warming. But because it allows local communities to become more self-sufficient. I think is great if some of you think you can transform the world economy to make it more fair.
Or if you think the world economy will become more fair after peak oil. How does that advance your cause? Now explain to ME why I should give a hoot about the eight billion who are indeed at risk of dying young? I a was born with a brain programmed by a hundreds of millions of years of evolution to give a damn about me and mine.
The ones who are going to die a horrible early death are just going to die a horrible early death. There is nothing at all intrinsically special about naked apes. A meteor or something along that line took out most of the life on this ball of rocks a couple of times and the interactions of volcanos and microbes inter tangled with the Milankovich cycles of our planetary orbit wiped out most live a few other times.
I am only half serious. Go ahead and grieve for the billions that are going to die because of overshoot. Maybe you will feel better. In the meantime the survivors will be eating and drinking and dancing and screwing and having a good old time in general.
I am more soft hearted and sentimental than most people when you get right down to it but you know what Comrade Stalin said? I would gladly condemn a hundred African or Chinese or Vietnamese kids I have never seen to death in order to save the life of a child of my own. Failure to do so would eliminate my own existence in the form of my child. I have NO doubt the average Chinese or African parent would make the same decision. Suicide is for losers.
Life is about winners. Winners write the history books. If all this sounds sort of cynical — well that is because being a realist I am also quite a cynic. There are many places where far less energy per capita is used than North America where life expectancy is similar. The second point is that we should transition to other forms of energy because fossil fuels will eventually deplete. If we wait too long then energy will be constrained and this could lead to great suffering.
The basic problem is that many think the party can go on forever, hopefully soon higher fossil fuel prices will become a reality. Maybe when peak oil is more widely recognized, people will realize that coal and natural gas will peak as well I think total fossil fuels will peak by , possibly as late as , depending on what happens to the World economy when peak oil is apparent.
Bottom line, by not changing our economy to run on less fossil fuel we may be trading high life expectancy now with lower future life expectancy due to energy constraints, unless we act. Print out and post beside your monitor.
Heck, how hard is it to buy a hybrid or plug-in? They think CO2 emissions can be reduced dramatically, which is a lot harder than fixing PO but tehir plan just happens to accomplish that along the way. The last entry is hilarious. I watched it many times just to cheer up after a tough day. Price optimization is about keeping ahead of the collapse in prices for goods across the board due to globalization and the drumbeat of innovation in production and distribution.
It is an attempt to de-commoditize products. That reduces price pressure caused by competition. There is nothing new about this, but it is getting more and more urgent. Backing EVs is unrelated. It is just the government pushing innovation, like the government land handout to the railroads after the American Civil War so they could build a transcontinental railroad.
You can argue that EVs are a bad bet, but they are hardly the end of civilization. Also I wonder what you mean by simple. EVs are simpler than ICEs. The engine has one moving part. We are shifting to solid state technology in many areas. Of course at the molecular level solid state devices are pretty complex, but nothing manmade come close to the complexity of a potato yet. I remember talking to Germans the early 80s. No doubt the cuneiform scribes bemoaned the introduction of paper as the end of permanent record keeping and beginning of dependence on paper makers.
They were right I guess. It just makes you look like a Rush Limbaugh fan. That was the point. I just used that one— invented hereon and somewhat to your credit— with some folks in person to some chuckles. I mean, what inspired my comment that day was also a crossing of the road during Rush hour and a notice of the overwhelming majority of vehicles that had only one person inside… Think of all that energy for all that metal and plastic, etc.
How would you explain your job or at least that price optimization bit to me? Some of your writings suggest that modern civilization has destroyed our souls.
That implies that at some point in history humans were in a state of grace and our souls were in nirvana. Civilization really seems to be putting the cart before the horse on that one! Wake up and smell the species disappearing. I even posted a comic about it that Fred Magyar liked and re-adapted. The one with the large stone dominoes going far away and then back in a circle to crush?
You can say whatever you want. Right up until your dying breath by your own hands. You can be disingenuous, deceitful and deceptive, even to yourself. That guy represents some people. So, would you like to make progess on this? Or would you like to endlessly say general vague things? If you want, we can try to deal with one specific things, and nail it down. We could discuss whether CO2 emissions could be eliminated in a cost effective way, for example.
Or whether phosphorus is going to deplete soon. Pick something specific, and we can talk about it, rather than endlessly talking in circles…. Relying on shale oil to achieve energy independence in the US is physical impossible; wells cannot be manufactured fast enough in sweet spots to offset decline rates and they are already, IMO, running out of room.
Energy independence was a myth propagated by the shale oil industry that unfortunately lots of people bought into. It was never going to happen. Mac is correct, the political aspects of a bail out are very complicated. Furthermore, there is a very real, very strong anti-oil sentiment in this country. Americans are not smart enough about oil ie.
They almost are anyway. Excuse the analogy but shale oil is liking taking Advil for Stage 4 cancer. Stars of spectral class M have a luminosity of only 0. Due to the inverse square law, a habitable planet will have to be very close or it will be a frozen ball of ice.
Unfortunately if the planet is too close it will become trapped by tidal locking so that one side of the planet always faces the primary star and the other always faces eternal darkness. Dole considered tidal locking to disqualify a planet from being considered human habitable.
In Dole's equation he calculates "h" as the maximum height of equilibrium tides caused in a planet by its primary star. By inspecting the various planets and moons in the solar system, Dole determined that if the square of h was larger 2. Given that, and with Doles other assumptions about the mass of habitable planets he calculated that the width of the ecosphere started narrowing due to tidal locking once the primary star mass dropped below 0.
This corresponds to spectral class K1. Now, when Dole was writing, the planet Mercury was thought to be tidally locked to Sol. About the time the book was published astronomers discovered that the planet was actually in a 3: This means the planet rotates three times on its axis for every two revolutions it makes around Sol. The point is that such a resonance makes a planet much more habitable than if it was tidally locked.
So Dole's spectral class limit is a bit dated. Dole thought it vital that a human habitable planet have life it, mostly to supply the planet's atmosphere with oxygen. He figured that a star has to emit light and heat for a fairly constant rate for at least 3 billion years to give life enough time to evolve. It goes without saying that the primary star has to have a lifespan longer than 3 billion years or it is automatically excluded. Dole figures this means the primary star must has a mass of 1.
That is represented by the horizontal line extending from the 1. Bottom line is Dole is restricting the primary star to spectral class F2 through K1 that is: Spectral class K2 through K9 and class M will tidal lock their habitable planets.
Finally Dole calculated that to have human-habitable temperatures on the planet's surface, it would need a top-of-the-atmosphere illumination between 0. See the inclination chart. So according to Dole, the ecosphere is the area bound by the h 2 tidal locking line, the 1. It is shaded in the chart above. To use, draw a horizontal line through the primary star's mass on the scale.
Note where the line enters and exits the ecosphere zone. Trace the intersections down to the Distance from the Primary scale to see the start and end points of the ecosphere in AU from the primary star. Recently there was a new scientific paper with a new complicated way to calculate "life-as-we-know-it" habitable zones. I'm currently trying to figure out how to adapt this for alien habitable zones, but it will take a while.
For this calculation, you will need primary star's S teff and S lum from the table above, and whether the planet's mass is closest to 0. Find the inner limit for the habitat zone by using the values in the column for inner hab zone for the appropriate Earth mass.
Find the outer limit by using the values in the column for All Outer Hab Zone. So for a planet with 5. Alien Habitable Zones If your planet is for alien life forms whose biology has a different chemical basis , you'll need a different circumstellar habitable zone. For creatures whose biology is based on poly-lipids dissolved in liquid methane you'd want a zone where the planet's average temperature allows methane to be liquid, not solid or gas about I've done some very shaky extrapolation using the planetary temperature equation.
I've assumed that all planets have an albedo of 0. Use them at your own risk. A cursory look at the chart tells me that the planetary temperature equation is not working in this case.
I know for a fact that Mercury can get up to K, but the equation is putting the K Fluorosilicone-Fluorosilicone zone about 0. I also find it suspicious that the human-habitable zone is not a subset of the Protein-Water zone. Oh, well, back to the drawing board.
Behind The Equations If you want to know the details of these equations, read on. Otherwise just skip to the next section. Presumably the planet you are building is a habitable one. Therefore you should set its orbital distance by the intensity of sunlight you'd like it to receive. To ensure that the planet is inside the circumstellar habitable zone, chose a value for sunlight such that P sunlight is between 0.
So let's make our planet around Ross have the same sunlight intensity as Terra. Ross is really really dim. But suppose—and here I want to make it quite clear that I'm only considering a hypothetical case—suppose Earth were to locate new supplies of the heavy metals. In the still-unexplored ocean depths, for instance. Or even on the Moon, despite the disappointments it's given in the past. It's all very well to say that Earth would be within its rights.
Legal arguments don't carry much weight when you're fighting thousand-atmosphere pressures on Jupiter, or trying to thaw out the frozen moons of Saturn. Don't forget, as you enjoy your mild spring days and peaceful summer evenings, how lucky you are to live in the temperate region of the solar system, where the air never freezes and the rocks never melt.
What is the Federation likely to do if such a situation arises? If I knew, I couldn't tell you. I can only make some guesses. To talk about war, in the old-fashioned sense, seems absurd to me. Either side could inflict heavy damage on the other, but any real trial of strength could not possibly be conclusive.
Earth has too many resources, even though they are dangerously concentrated. And she owns most of the ships in the solar system. How can Earth carry out a simultaneous fight against half-a-dozen planets and moons, poorly equipped though they may be? The supply problem would be completely hopeless. And you thought Mercury had a short year. Even though Ross has a tiny diameter compared to Sol, it's planet is so much closer that the star has an angular diameter in the sky about 3.
Cleopatra moves around Caesar in an orbit of slight eccentricity, at an average distance of 1. Its year is 1. Nevertheless, because of its brightness, Caesar gives Cleopatra 1.
A larger proportion of this energy is in the shorter wavelengths; Caesar appears a bit more bluish white than yellowish white to human vision. The lesser apparent size is not particularly noticeable, since no prudent person looks anywhere near it without eye protection, let alone straight at it.
Shadows on the ground tend to be sharper than on Earth and to have more of a blue tinge. All color values are subtly different, though one quickly gets used to this. For man to find it livable, a planet must be neither too near nor too far from its sun. The total amount of energy it receives in a given time is proportional to the output of that sun and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between.
Figure 3 diagrams this for the inner Solar System in terms of the astronomical unit, the average separation of Sol and Earth. Thus we see that Venus, at 0. The same curve will work for any other star if you multiply its absolute brightness. For example, at its distance of 1. That could turn it into an oven—by human standards, at any rate. We want our planet in a more comfortable orbit. What should that be? If we set it about 1.
No one can say this is impossible. There does appear to be a harmonic rule associated with the names of Bode and Titius and there are reasons to suppose this is not coincidental. Otherwise we are ignorant. Yet it would be remarkable if many stars had planets at precisely the distances most convenient for man.
Seeking to vary the parameters as much as reasonable, and assuming that the attendants of larger stars will tend to swing in larger paths, I finally put Cleopatra 1. This means that it gets 1. Now that is an average distance.
Planets and moons have elliptical orbits. We know of none which travel in perfect circles. However, some, like Venus, come close to doing so; and few have courses which are very eccentric.
For present purposes, we can use a fixed value of separation between star and planet, while bearing in mind that it is only an average. The variations due to a moderate eccentricity will affect the seasons somewhat, but not much compared to other factors. In the present exposition, we will assume that Cleopatra has a near-circular track. This is another of those questions that cannot be answered for sure in the current state of knowledge. But we can make an educated guess.
Therefore it changes more slowly than one might think. At the same time, the actual mean temperature at the surface of Earth is considerably greater than such calculations make it out to be, largely because the atmosphere maintains a vast reservoir of heat in the well-known greenhouse effect.
And air and water together protect us from such day-night extremes as Luna suffers. The tropics might not be usable by men, but the higher latitudes and uplands ought to be pretty good. Remember, though, that this bit of arithmetic has taken no account of atmosphere or hydrosphere. I think they would smooth things out considerably.
On the one hand, they do trap heat; on the other hand, clouds reflect back a great deal of light, which thus never has a chance to reach the surface; and both gases and liquids blot up, or redistribute, What does get through. My best guess is, therefore, that while Cleopatra will generally be somewhat warmer than Earth, the difference will be less than an oversimplified calculation suggests. The tropics will usually be hot, but nowhere unendurable; and parts of them, cooled by altitude or sea breezes, may well be quite balmy.
There will probably be no polar ice caps, but tall mountains ought to have their eternal snows. Pleasant climates should prevail through higher latitudes than is the case on Earth. You may disagree, in which case you have quite another story to tell. By all means, go ahead. Varying opinions make science fiction yarns as well as horse races. Alas for ease, this involves two factors, the mass of the sun and the size of the orbit.
The year-length is inversely proportional to the square root of the former, and directly proportional to the square root of the cube of the semi-major axis. So here we need two graphs. Figure 4 shows the relationship of period to distance from the sun within our solar system. We see, for instance, that body twice as far out as Earth is takes almost three times as long to complete a circuit.
At a remove of 1. But our imaginary sun is more massive than Sol. Therefore its gravitational grip is stronger and, other things being equal, it swings its children around faster. Figure 5 charts inverse square roots. For a mass of 1. If we multiply together the figures taken off these two graphs —1.
That is, our planet takes 1. Its year lasts about fifteen of our months. I used a slide rule. But for those not inclined to do likewise, the diagrams will furnish numbers which can be used to get at least a general idea of how some fictional planet will behave.
Let me point out afresh that these are nevertheless important numbers, a part of the pseudo-reality the writer hopes to create. What does this do to the seasons, the calendar, the entire rhythm of life? We shall need more information before we can answer such questions, but it is not too early to start thinking about them. Although more massive than Sol, the sun of Cleopatra is not much bigger. Not only is volume a cube function of radius, which would make the diameter just six percent greater if densities were equal, but densities are not equal.
The heavier stars must be more compressed by their own weight than are the lighter ones. Hence we can say that all suns which more or less resemble Sol have more or less the same size. Now our imaginary planet and its luminary are further apart than our real ones. Therefore the sun must look smaller in the Cleopatran than in the terrestrial sky. That is, in the present case we have a star whose breadth, in terms of Sol, is 1, while its distance is 1. In other words, our imaginary sun looks a bit smaller in the heavens than does our real one.
This might be noticeable, even striking, when it was near the horizon, the common optical illusion at such times exaggerating its size. What might the psychological effects of that be? Otherwise it would make no particular diiference—since no one could safely look near so brilliant a thing without heavy eye protection—except that shadows would tend to be more sharp-edged than on Earth.
Those shadows ought also to have a more marked bluish tinge, especially on white surfaces. Indeed, all color values are subtly changed by the light upon Cleopatra. I suspect men would quickly get used to that; but perhaps not.
Most likely, so active a sun produces some auroras that put the terrestrial kind to shame, as well as occasional severe interference with radio, power lines, and the like. But there is still a possible story or two in this point. An oxygen-containing atmosphere automatically develops an ozone layer which screens out most of the ultraviolet.
Nevertheless, humans would have to be more careful about sunburn than on Earth, especially in the lower latitudes or on the seas.
The planetary system lies in Ursa Major, light-years from Sol. This causes certain changes in the appearance of the heavens.
Northerly constellations are "spread out" and most of the familiar stars in them show brighter than at Earth, though some have left the configurations because, seen from here, they now lie in a southerly direction. Fainter stars in them, invisible at Earth, have become naked-eye objects.
These changes are the greater the nearer one looks toward Ursa Major. It is itself modified quite out of recognition by the untrained eye, as are the constellations closest to it.
The further away one looks, around the celestial sphere, the less distortion. Southern constellations are comparatively little affected. Those near the south celestial pole of Earth, such as Octans, keep their shapes the best, though they exhibit the most shrinkage in angular size. Various of their fainter stars as seen from Earth are now invisible—Sol is too—but they have been replaced by others which as seen from Earth "originally" were northern.
Thus to a native of the Terrestrial northern hemisphere the sky seems considerably changed around the Dippers, Cassiopeia, etc. But Orion, for example, is still identifiable; and the constellations that an Australian or Argentinian is used to are not much altered. However—the celestial hemispheres of Cleopatra are not identical with those of Earth. There is no definite lodestar, but Pisces turns around a point in its own middle, accompanied by neighbors such as Virgo, Pegasus, and Aquarius.
The south celestial pole is near Crater. The constellations that Earthmen are accustomed to seeing high in either sky are here—insofar as they are recognizable—always low, and many are only to be observed at given seasons.
Under these circumstances, it may be most convenient for colonists to redraw the star map entirely, making new constellations out of what they see. Or perhaps this will happen of itself in the course of generations. First, where in the universe is the star? True, Alpha Centauri A is almost a twin, and its closer companion is not much different.
However, this is a multiple system. That does not necessarily rule out its having planets; but the possibility of this is controversial, and in any event it would complicate things too much for the present essay if we had more than one sun. Rather than picking a real star out of an astronomical catalogue, though that is frequently a good idea, I made mine up, and arbitrarily put it about four hundred light-years off in the direction of Ursa Major. This is unspecific enough—it defines such a huge volume of space—that something corresponding is bound to be out there someplace.
Seen from that location, the boreal constellations are considerably changed, though most remain recognizable. The austral constellations have suffered the least alteration, the equatorial ones are intermediately affected. But who says the celestial hemispheres of Cleopatra must be identical with those of Earth? For all we know, its axis could be at right angles to ours. Thus a writer can invent picturesque descriptions of the night sky and of the images which people see there.
Here you will have to play around with selecting various values for mass, density, and radius until you get results you like. They are closely interrelated. Habitable Planets for Man suggested that the maximum gravity for a human-habitable planet should be about 1. Cleopatra is smaller than Earth. In terms of the latter planet, its mass is 0. This last means that, for example, a human who weighed 80 kg on Earth weighs For instance, aircraft need less wing area but ground vehicles need more effective brakes.
An object falling through a given distance takes 1. Now what about the planet itself? If we have been a long time in coming to that, it simply emphasizes the fact that no body— and nobody—exists in isolation from the whole universe. Were the globe otherwise identical with Earth, we would already have innumerable divergences.
Therefore let us play with some further variations. For instance, how big or small can it be? Too big, and it will keep most of its primordial hydrogen and helium, as our great outer planets have done; it will be even more alien than are Mars or Luna.
In such an area of mystery, the science fiction writer is free to guess. But let us go at the problem from another angle. How much gravity—or how little—can mankind tolerate for an extended period of time?
We know that both high weight, such as is experienced in a centrifuge, and zero weight, such as is experienced in an orbiting spacecraft, have harmful effects. However, it seems reasonable to assume that men and women can adjust to some such range as 0. That is, a person who weighs pounds on Earth can safely live where he weighs as little as or as much as Of course, he will undergo somatic changes, for instance in the muscles; but we can suppose these are adaptive, not pathological.
The reference to women is not there as a concession to militant liberationists. It takes both sexes to keep humanity going. The Spaniards failed to colonize the Peruvian altiplano for the simple reason that, while both they and their wives could learn to breathe the thin air, the wives could not bring babies to term. So the local Indians, with untold generations of natural selection behind them, still dominate that region, racially if not politically.
This is one example of the significance of changing a parameter. Science fiction writers should be able to invent many more. The pull of a planet at its surface depends on its mass and its size. These two quantities are not independent. Though solid bodies are much less compressible than gaseous ones like stars, still, the larger one of them is, the more it tends to squeeze itself, forming denser allotropes in its interior.
Suppose it has 0. Then, although its total mass is only 0. Our person who weighed pounds here, Weighs about there. I use these particular figures because they are the ones I chose for Cleopatra. Considering Mars, it seems most implausible that any world that small could retain a decent atmosphere; but considering Venus, it seems as if many Worlds of rather less mass than it or Earth may do so. At least, nobody today can disprove the idea.
But since there is less self-compression, have I given Cleopatra an impossibly high density? No, because I am postulating a higher proportion of heavy elements in its makeup than Earth has. That is not fantastic. Stars, and presumably their planets, do vary in composition. The results of changing the gravity must be far-reaching indeed. Just think how this could influence the gait, the need for systematic exercise, the habit of standing versus sitting are people in low weight more patient about queues?
In a lesser gravity, it takes a bit longer to fall some certain distance, and one lands a bit less hard; mountains and dunes tend to be steeper; pendulums of a given length, and waves on water, move slower.
The air pressure falls oif less rapidly with altitude. Thus, here on Earth, at about 18, feet the pressure is one half that at sea level; but on Cleopatra, you must go up to 21, feet for this. The effects on weather, every kind of flying, and the size of life zones bear thinking about. In our present state of ignorance, we have to postulate many things that suit our story purposes but may not be true—for example, that a planet as small as Cleopatra can actually hold an Earth-type atmosphere.
Other postulates—for example, that Cleopatran air is insufficient, or barely sufficient, to sustain human life—are equally legitimate, and lead to quite other stories. But whatever the writer assumes, let him realize that it will make for countless strangenesses, some radical, some subtle, but each of them all-pervasive, in the environment. If we have a higher proportion of heavy elements, including radioactive ones, than Earth does, then we doubtless get more internal heat; and the lesser size of Cleopatra also helps pass it outward faster.
Thus here we should have more than a terrestrial share of volcanoes, quakes, and related phenomena. I guess there would be plenty of high mountains, some overreaching Everest; but we still know too little about how mountains get raised for this to be much more than a guess. In some areas, local concentrations of arsenic or whatever may Well make the soil dangerous to man. But on the whole, industry ought to thrive. Conversely, and other things being equal, a metal-poor world is presumably fairly quiescent; a shortage of copper and iron might cause its natives to linger indefinitely in a Stone Age; colonists might have to emphasize a technology based on lighter elements such as aluminum.
How fast does the planet rotate? This is a crucial question, but once more, not one to which present-day science can give a definitive answer. We know that Earth is being slowed down by Luna, so maybe it once spun around far more quickly than now. Mars, whose satellites are insignificant, turns at nearly the same angular speed, while Venus, with no satellite whatsoever, is exceedingly slow and goes widdershins to boot.
It does seem likely that big planets will, by and large, spin rapidly—such as Jupiter, with a period of about ten hours. What's the average planetary temperature? That's hard to calculate. This equation will give you a rough idea, but it predicts a slightly incorrect temperature for Terra. When I said "rough" I meant it. You can convert from Kelvin to Celsius by using Google search for " This equation gives slightly inaccurate results.
That means a planet with an average temperature of K is unsuitable for unprotected humans but might be just perfect for some weird alien life form. Since we decided that Ross planet would have the same sunlight intensity as Terra, if it has the same albedo as Terra it will also have the same average temperature as Terra. Or the same slightly incorrect temperature the equation gives:. This is not just a comfortable range for human beings, but it is also the temperatures best tolerated by Terran agricultural crops and domesticated animals we use for food.
The Sun replaced with other stars. Distance is assumed to be 1 AU in all cases. Image by Halcyon Maps. If something is shining as a blackbody, its temperature determines its color , because not only does the intensity of the radiated electromagnetic energy change with temperature, so do its wavelengths. The color tends from red toward blue with increasing temperature.
They just refer to the wavelength bias. Different elements absorb or emit particular wavelengths of light, and these absorbed wavelengths show up as spectral lines superimposed on the blackbody background. At higher temperatures more atoms are ionized, because one or more of their electrons are knocked off by the increasingly violent collisions with other atoms.
From hottest to coolest, they are: The Sun is a type G2. The effective temperature is the temperature of a perfect blackbody that puts out the same amount of radiation. This not only tells you how much delta V a spacecraft will need to escape from the planet, it also tells you which atmospheric elements will escape into space. The distance to the horizon calculated geometrically here will not be the same as the distance as seen on a planet with an atmosphere. The pesky atmosphere refracts light so you can see a bit farther, but the actual amount changes with the current temperature gradient.
As a rough rule of thumb, you can correct for this by multiplying the value for P radiusM by 1. It is often mentioned that the horizon on Luna is so close that astronauts felt like they were constantly in danger of stepping off a cliff. Theoretically on a planet with a larger radius that Terra people can see farther and may start to feel like they were tiny ants or otherwise insignificant.
Standing on a flat plain or sea, a man of normal height observes the horizon as being about 7 km off, compared to about 8 on Earth—not a terribly striking difference, especially in rugged topography or hazy weather. I must admit that certain of them scarcely look important. Thus, the horizon distance—for a man standing on a flat plain —is proportional to the square root of the planet's diameter.
On Earth it is about five miles, and for globes not very much bigger or smaller, the change will not be striking. Often mountains, woods, haze, or the like will blot it out entirely… Yet even in this apparent triviality, some skillful writer may see a story. The basic idea is simple.
If a molecule is moving faster than the planet's escape velocity, it goes streaking into the inky depths of space. Otherwise it sticks around and helps comprise the planet's atmosphere.
A molecule's speed depends upon two things, the molecule's weight and the molecule's temperature. Molecular weight is easy. You can look it up in Wikipedia or something, all molecules of a given chemical compound have identical masses. Molecular temperature depends upon the the planet's average temperature. To the right is a table of molecular weights of various gasses likely to be atmospheric components. Temperature is problematic, since my references are a bit vague on whether you should use the temperature at the planet's surface or at the planet's exosphere.
We have the equation for the average temperature of the planet's surface, but not for the exosphere. Otherwise the gas will escape in a few million years, much less the few billion years the planet will need to become habitable. Figure out the Jeans escape velocity V escJean. Any atmospheric gas in the table which the formula calculates a Mol vel higher than V escJean is not going to be in the planet's atmosphere. There should be a way to rearrange the equation so it yields the maximum molecular weight a planet can hang on to, but I'm getting odd results when I try.
Please note this is for a primordial planetary atmosphere. Specifically if the planet has no life more specifically: Oxygen is too darn reactive: The only way a planet can have O 2 in the atmo is if it is continuously renewed, and that means plant life. Whether an atmosphere is breathable for human beings depends upon percentage of oxygen and the barometric pressure. Having said that, if the percentage of oxygen is too high, everything is constantly catching on fire. Fossil Cretaceous charcoal deposits suggest that Tyrannosaurus Rex spent a lot of time fleeing forest fires and constantly getting a hotfoot.
Paleontologists could not figure out how pteranodon biochemistry could possibly generate enough energy to allow the creatures to fly. This also explains the curious geological layers at the K—T boundary. This was when the Dinosaur Killer asteroid wiped them out. The geological layers show an iridum layer from the asteroid strike, followed by a world-wide layer of finely divided carbon. That's where the carbon layer came from.
Any dinosaur that managed to avoid being barbecued in the continental fire-storms would have starved to death as the following two years of black clouds killed off all the plants. Atmospheric pressure, on the other hand, depends upon how much gas the planet has managed to hold on to. Which means it could be anything, choose whatever you want.
Terra and Venus are about the same size and mass, but the atmospheric pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of Terra. Click here for an interactive gas retention plot. Despite its lesser dimensions, Cleopatra has quite a terrestroid atmosphere.
In fact, the sea level pressures on the two planets are almost identical. It is thought that this is due to the hot, dense mass of the planet outgassing more than Earth did, early hi their respective histories, and to the fact that, ever since, the strong magnetic field has helped keep too many molecules from getting kicked away into space by solar and cosmic ray particles. Air pressure drops with altitude more slowly than on Earth, because of the lower gravity.
On Earth, at about 5. Not only does that moderate surface conditions, it extends life zones higher, and offers more possibilities to flyers both living and mechanical.
One clear-cut, if indirect, influence of tides on weather is through the spin of the planet. The more rapidly it rotates, the stronger the cyclone-breeding Coriolis forces. In the case of Cleopatra, we have not only this factor, but also the more powerful irradiaton—and, maybe, the greater distance upward from surface to stratosphere, together with the lesser separation of poles and tropics—to generate more violent and changeable weather than is common on Earth.
Insofar as the matter is understood by contemporary geophysicists, we can predict that Cleopatra, having a hotter molten core and a greater rate of rotation, possesses a respectable magnetic field, quite likely stronger than the terrestrial. This will have helped preserve its atmosphere, in spite of the higher temperatures and lower gravity. Solar particles, which might otherwise have kicked gas molecules into space, have generally been warded off. To be sure, some get through to the uppermost thin layers of air, creating secondary cosmic rays, electrical disturbances, and showy auroras.
The ecliptic is the plane that the orbits of the solar system's planet mostly lies in. For purposes of planetary climate, the important point is that the sun's rays that hit a planet travel more or less parallel to the ecliptic.
The bottom line is that the axial tilt creates the planet's seasons. The angle that the sunlight hits the ground affects the concentration of heat. It is hottest when it hits the ground perpendicular to the ground plane. Axial tilt also controls how many hours of daylight and night time there are per day at various parts of the year. During the winter the days are short and the nights are long, the reverse is true in summer.
At the equinoxes equal-night the hours of daylight and night time are equal. Terra has an axial tilt of There having been less tidal friction acting on it through most of its existence, Cleopatra spins faster than Earth: Its year therefore lasts of its own days, give or take a little bit because of trepidation, precession, etc.
However, the climate of high latitudes is not necessarily more extreme on that account. Certainly winters are less cold. It is the difference in the length of seasons—a fourth again as much—which'is most important. Likewise, the seasonal variation of day and night lengths is more marked than on Earth, and the Arctic and Antarctic come nearer to the equator.
The stronger sun, which supplies more energy; the longer year, which gives more time to overcome thermal lag; 'the smaller size, which brings zones closer together; the larger axial tilt, which exaggerates the differences between them; the quicker spin, which generates more potent cyclonic forces; the lower pressures but the longer distance up to a stratosphere, which make for more extensive air masses moving at a given time under given conditions — all these create "livelier" weather than on Earth.
Storms are more common and violent, though they tend to be short-lived. Huge thunderstorms in the river valley, twisters on the plains, hurricanes in the tropics, and blizzards near the poles are things which colonists must expect; they have to build stoutly and maintain an alert, meteorological service. But this seeming drawback has its good side. With such variability, both droughts and deluges are rare; chilly fogs don't linger; inversion layers break up before they accumulate unpleasant gases; daytime cloud patterns can be gorgeous to watch, while nights are brilliantly clear more often than not, in most areas of the planet.
If you can get me a more solid scientific link like Pubmed, then my ears perk up a little more. Fred — If you can present a more recent update than the USDA data that I linked, you'll be in a better position to argue. I've laid out data that has been updated as recently as Feb I agree with you that well-controlled prolonged hypercaloric comparisons of varying macronutrient intakes are lacking.
It is quite obvious that all sorts popular today are selected with the sweetness as a first priority. But it probably has little to do with the obesity. My point is that people are obese because they want to do what makes them obese consume calories.
Lustig has made it clear here that there is context and dose-response but he continues to obfuscate — not commenting on the context of calories or dose ranges. Context is an afterthought.
This is what is disingenuous and perhaps what Alan and others are objecting to. To quote Lustig himself in this video;. At about the In terms of caloric context, Lustig proclaims at about the 21 min. These are caustic statements — statements that demand immediate qualification. By not contextualizing these bold proclamations it makes Lustig sound agenda-driven. This is contrary to scientific thought and in my mind, reduces his message to some good points mixed in with a lot of noise.
Lustig — Please see my interjections to your numbered quotes below. The only evidence directly linking HFCS consumption and weight gain is ecological data.
Ecological data are widely recognized as insufficient for establishing cause-effect relationships. HFCS consumption and weight gain have major gaps. The impact of HFCS consumption on BMI must be put in context with other broad economic and societal changes during the past several decades. Many other plausible explanations for rising overweight and obesity rates exist, including a decrease in smoking; an increase in sedentary occupations; an increase in two-income households and single-parent households; transportation and infrastructure changes that discourage physical activity; a decrease in PE classes and extracurricular sports programs in schools; an increase in sedentary forms of entertainment i.
The expert panel concluded that the currently available evidence is insufficient to implicate HFCS per se as a causal factor in the overweight and obesity problem in the United States.
Sushi rice is made with about 1 tbsp sucrose per cup of uncooked rice. Even some non-dessert items have added sugar within dips and sauces such as teriyaki.
However, based on my observations of the reactions of those on fitness message boards, that certainly has not been the predominant take-home message absorbed by the viewers. Let me also add the fact that unless I missed it, you neglected to provide anything concrete in terms of a safe fructose dosage range, nor any contextual guidelines in which to frame such a range. After viewing your response, I will maintain my position, and I suggest you rethink the content and delivery of your next lecture.
Let me suggest that you place a little more emphasis on dose-dependence rather than painting a black-white picture of fructose that crucially downplays the importance of context. Obese people were used as circus sideshow cases years ago when obesity was very rare. The point is excessive height as well as excessive fat accumulation is a hormonal disorder.
It is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. And every single time a fitness professional decreases someones calories they also decrease their total carb intake and alter the type of carbs from highly refined to fibrous. You will never get an obese person lean by lowering their calories and yet keeping the refined sugars high. My point was that in the RDA asked many more companies to report on vegetable oil.
The spike from to was due to previous underreporting. They did not however go BACK and adjust. Therefore the percentage of nutrients are all askew. My USDA table is from In addition, other factors influence hunger, appetite, and subsequent food intake; these factors include neurochemical factors e.
When considering food consumption in everyday life it is important to consider the above-mentioned factors. The effects of a chemical will change with different amounts, so that below a certain dose it may be harmless or beneficial and at a higher dose it may be toxic. I wonder why he would make a claim that is so easily refuted? Does he assume the absence of fructose in a hypercaloric diet results in weight loss?
Does he assume fructose consumption in a hypocaloric diet results in weight gain? Does he assume that everyone following the Atkins and Japanese Diet are lean? Cynthia- Please re-read my comments on correlation and causation. Please refer to any basic manual on logic. There is an ample amount of data explaining the difference between correlation and causation. This false assumption is generally derived from the idea that processes performed by living things are fundamentally different than ones created through chemical laboratory processes.
Ok, never mind that every living process is fundamentally a chemical process. They include ricin, abrin, botulinum, and strychnine—highly evolved chemical weapons used by organisms for self-defense and territorial expansion. Indeed, every plant and microbe carries a variety of mostly uncharacterized, more or less toxic attack chemicals, and synthetic chemicals are no more likely to be toxic than natural ones Silver, Other examples of dangerous natural substance include water hemlock, arsenic and mercury.
The chemical reality- whether a substance is manufactured by people, copied from nature or extracted directly from nature, tells us little at all about its properties. Where do we draw the line and how can we ever expect to gain any real knowledge if interesting info takes precedence over evidence-based claims?
Not sure, but I know I saw it. Why get hung up on dosage? Nicholas puts forth a pitiful argument. Is that nit picky? Saying the Japanese diet is absent- not present, not existing- of fructose means no fructose. Actually, this lack of nit pickiness is one of the most common problems with communication.
Japanese eat less sugar, so what? Please refer to the info I posted above discussing correlation and causation. Thanks Mike for pointing that out. Seems like when he comments on the blog he is trying to wiggle his way out of some of the assertions made on the video.
I would recommend he look at the scientific data- maybe all of the available data, distinguish the strengths of different types of evidence, invest some time into studying logic science of reason , admit he is fallible, pay credit where credit is due- to Alan Aragon, and if he has a team of research data associates get rid of them and get some new ones.
The addition of HFCS to a negative energy diet does not cause weight gain. Fred, the circus ladies back in the day at their lowest weight were in the lb range and sometimes very short in height. If you look at the tale of one lady, Baby Ruth, she was pounds by the age of ten.
You consider that normal? You should also check out how easy it was for her to lose weight and the effort they had to go through to get her to gain more weight for what she was doing. In United States it is estimated less than 0. The average person see the effects of their body increase overtime due to a lack of movement in correlation with a increase in calorie consumption.
This study shows that the average fitness level of the morbidly obese body mass indexes between This leaves the burning very close to a BMR level of expenditure. Clinical Cardiology, ; 32 3: Fat, carbs or protein, it is highly easy to out eat that type of activity especially when there is such a disruption in the endocrine system. Fred, you got get over the height thing. Not to mention you are comparing apples and oranges. Excessive growth hormone is the likely factor of excessive height.
Growth hormone is usually blunted in those with obesity. In terms you might understand, it is much like relating your stance to the event that took place when the Ninja Turtles walked in the green goo.
In the process of achieving a leaner state, people need to consume less calories. Once they have achieved a leaner state, calorie consumption can be whatever the hell you want it to be depending on your movement and training lifestyle. Actually you can Fred but this is a flawed argument stance. Some people crash on low carb and decrease their daily activity as well as see severe depletion in mental function.
This leads to faster stalls or binge incidences on the rebound. For others it is smooth sailing, it just depends. You will only find a success with a small population of people who fit into a certain criteria but hey, that is fine. I have no problem using critical thought and assessment of situation to aid different people and pick up your slack. See, that is the ironic part of your argument Fred. You claim hormonal abnormalities bridge a large scale and are responsible for differences.
I agree; we are all different. Your thinking on the matter is 2 dimensional. We can discuss this at length on my site if you wish.
And there is no slack for you to pick up. ALL my clients who follow my recommended low carb ad libitum plan lose fat quite well. Listen to my story. I was around pounds. I learned about carbohydrate restriction and went on an Atkins style diet.
My caloric intake quadrupled. Did I gain or lose? I lost 6 pant sizes in 3 months. Yeah, screw caloric restriction. Continually citing anecdotal reports does not help further your cause. There may be limited research, but a recent study suggests that the ketogenic diet does not offer a metabolic advantage over a standard, reduced-calorie diet see: You can grab the same type of testimonials claiming the same results from the promoters of low fat diets like the Pritikin diet, Body for Life, or any diet for that matter.
Whatever it takes to get the person to stick with a calorie deficit is the right diet for that person. I agree with Leigh Peele that you have a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores individual differences. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages ie, LBM support, satiety, thermic effect , and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes.
Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage. The funny part is, the majority of long-term trials 12 months or more STILL fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.
For some folks, low-carb is warranted. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low-carb absolutists. What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes.
From my plebeian point of view, Alan seems to have the most thought out stance on the subject that looks at the big picture. Just an attack on the quality of your evidence and arguments. Always nice to see a debate going on. I am a specialist in East Asian international affairs and have spent a great deal of time in Japan for research purposes.
Bakeries serving all variety of desserts both Western and Asian are ubiquitous, easily as ubiquitous as Starbucks is here in Seattle. I would argue that fructose consumption through HFCS-loaded sweetened drinks and dessert products is even more common than it is in America.
This tends to become quite the competitive endeavor amongst inebriated company men. Many restaurants encourage you to purchase both for a discount so you can drink and eat yourself sick at the same time. Workers in Osaka will typically get off work and begin their binge at 5: The major difference between Japan and America? The Japanese walk, and walk, and walk, and walk, and walk, and walk some more and can manage the calories in versus calories out issue far better than we Americans.
Anyone who believes that the Japanese, in daily practice, eat more healthfully than the average American needs to go abroad. As a parting thought, anyone familiar with Japanese cooking knows that nearly every single sauce used has a foundation consisting of soy sauce and sugar as syrup, honey, or straight-up cane sugar.
Hopefully this will educate the people who are ignoring the realities of the Japanese diet in regards to sugar consumption. I hope that Dr. Lustig does the responsible thing and comments further, perhaps with a modified stance based on the evidence discussed here.
I have a bad feeling that he may have taken his ball and ran home. I hope not, though. This type of discussion just goes to show that anyone can have holes in his case, be it a doctor, professor, or both. I doubt you understand how complexe metabolism regulation is. If it was just as simple as excess insulin, obesity would not be hard to treat.
Well hot damn, this is good stuff. Thanks for the contributions, everyone. One thing that needs to be emphasized is that hashing these matters out facilitates learning for everyone involved. Lustig, please do me a favor and address some of the contentions leveled at you. Mr Aragon thanks for writing this article. Especially enjoyed the points you raised on context-dropping. This is a very important point and what she is referring to is intrinsicism.
This occurs when people treat value or non-value as a non-relational property of an object. Instead the value is seen as contained somewhere where?
You took the words right out of my mouth. In addition to the forms you mentioned as being staple ingredients in traditional Japanese dishes, sucrose is also paired with sake rice wine in a liquid called mirin. Another staple ingredient is called ryori-shu or cooking alcohol. A piece of fish. Seasoning may be salt or teriyaki sauce combo soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu or A breaded and deep-fried paddy of ground meat or potato. Seasoning is a sweet, brown sauce similar to BBQ sauce.
Seasoning combo of soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu or Shredded cabbage that is companion to the breaded and deep-fried paddy. Eggs beaten with sugar, soy sauce and soup stock and then fried and rolled into a cube shape. The latter, is a soup made of a combo of soy sauce, sugar, mirin, and ryori-shu. The more fat on a cut of meat, the more expensive it is. I live near a restaurant that sells a steak dinner for USD of which the steak is more white than red.
Your inane ramblings, strawmen and anecdotal counter arguments do more to discredit yourself than anyone here could. Lustig is missing the forest and demonizing the tree. Thank you to both for sharing your thoughts. Good posts, but far too measured. Sorry folks, the days of a conservative bowl of rice, raw fish, and a bowl of miso are long gone. Is my rambling a sweeping generalization? Anyway, back to apples…. You asked for some decent evidence.
It merely tells us that they contain a range of grams of carbohydrate per g serving. Quoting my article above: Here is what has changed and continues to change since Crisco was introduced in — the consumption of processed foods. Fructose is part of that over-all picture that began years ago. We eat more, we move less. I look through my HS yearbook and can only find pictures of teenage men or women over weight, none obese. It was rare for parents to be more than a few pounds overweight until they were over Here is a study that suggests many of those extra calories are in beverages.
Though fructose is not an evil food, consuming it in large quantities easily while watching TV or playing video games contributes to the problem but the obestiy problem though not caused by fructose alone, is certainly aided by economic and social policy just as tobacco use was years ago.
The decline in cancer rates is attributed to falls in the number of tobacco users. If we want to do something meaningful to prevent a generation of youth growing up with NAFLD, then we need to do something about our policy regarding fructose production. Alan, ya got me. I did find The effect of a high consumption of apples or grapes on dental caries and periodontal disease in humans.
That still leaves the problem of the metabolically-impaired. Metabolically-impaired people who eat lots of fruit can deteriorate into full-blown diabetics. Nothing that you said above in any way changes the truth of anything that Alan wrote in his blog post. The other part of the picture that people are missing is that Americans have become MUCH lazier and rely much more heavily on a sedentary lifestyle.
Furthermore, as stated above, Japanese foods and the trend of liking desserts is just as high there as in the USA. However, among many favoring factors, they do walk more day-to-day compared to those living in the USA…most notably either in a car, behind a desk, in front of a TV or Playstation, in bed, no more Physical Education in schools, etc.
I think it is clear that nobody is promoting suagry liquid consumption either from socrose or HFCS on any party in this debate, and it is definitely part of the puzzle to obesity. However, this is mainly because of the overconsumption from all foods as stated by Alan. Furthermore, Jamie pointed out that there is a HUGE difference when it is consumed on a hypocaloric diet than compared to a hypercaloric diet.
Factor in physical activity, and it makes even more of a difference. Mitch had a banana, orange, and blueberries for breakfast. For him to turn a recommendation of 2 servings of fruit a day into 20 servings, who knows what else he did to screw up dietary compliance. If you all agree that fructose at a certain level is damaging, then I challenge you to come up with a number.
Try it, and you might see why Dr. Lustig does not, because it would be highly specific to the individual. Some of you focus on calories, when the issue with fructose is really metabolic disorder which would cause you to regulate your body weight poorly. If your hormonal signals of insulin, leptin, etc. Yes, exercise and other can help you maintain this balance, which allows you to consume more fructose mentioned in the lecture during the biochemistry. In addition, some populations including Japanese handle carbs better.
Come up with a one-size-fits-all number for fructose now when you have to deal with diet, genetics, exercise, etc.? As for Japan, it should not be denied that less sugar is consumed overall, despite the existence of dessert shops and drinking houses.
Some of the population obviously will go for that. Japan does have over a million people after all. Lustig is not a lawyer, I can forgive him for that.
If people are consuming enough fructose to cause metabolic disorders, they have more problems than just the soda..
And when you read the text books that fact slaps you in the face. JLB — You speak as if you have great client experience using different diets. I know nothing more than that. I was asked last year by Dr. I run a gym that for the past 12 years has shed hundreds of pounds off of people and been on the T0day show twice, and oh I forget 2 dozen other major TV and radio shows including Oprah and friends with Dr. I can see that you work hard to whet your craft, so let me suggest that you pay more attention and learn from the real gurus, not the ones who are so attached to their dogma that their quality of info has stopped improving 15 years ago.
No insulin, no fat storage regardless of the calories ingested. Also, why is it that in studies where they used drugs to inhibit insulin secretion they showed no difference in weight loss?
Why is it so hard to accept as true? All that you are doing is wishful thinking and showing once again how people are stubborn when it comes to changing their mind. Anyway, the low-carb infatuation is fadding now, so you better take the train while you can. There are many reasons why this could be. Like the Barry Sears study that was mentioned here on this thread.
Quite flawed and biased. And if you think the low carb issue is fading you have not a clue of what is going on in the world of bariatric medicine. You are as wrong as wrong can be.
Excess carbohydrate intake is the primary source for adipose tissue stores. Try to get fat on an all fat-meat diet. I dare any of you to try this. I guarantee you will will get leaner of you are somewhat over fat and more muscular if already lean and training. I bet you NONE of you will try. Assuming it is using it rather than storing it. Hormones regulate fat storage.
Why so many of you want to hold onto the age old calorie nonsense is frightening. What do you say to your clients — eat enough protein and the rest is up to you so long as you eat less calories than you are now? Eat two chicken large breasts a day and the rest in bagels, poptarts and cookies? Listen, no hard feelings. We all choose to help our clients as best as we can. I doubt if most people could keep that up.
My guess is that most people would eventually lower their calorie intake as they get tired of eating just meat and eggs.
Although I admit that that would probably lead to weight loss! Most people who lose weight gain the weight back. I lost 65 pounds, plateaued, and then gained most of it back. This was on a diet where my main carb source was fruit and whipped cream… too much fructose, I guess! We need sustainable diets that people can adhere to. Do you have any studies to support this? This is quite an outrageous claim to make without having any form of evidence to back it up.
In this world of pseudo-science, someone should at least have some academic credibility if he wants to talk about science and research. Do you have this? Not an ad hominem here, just being realistic.
So, what credibility do you have regarding this? Nobody has shot my theory down in flames yet. This speaks to your business acumen — not your knowledge. There is absolutely NO WAY that someone with such a hard-lined stances on nutrition could be looking at the scientific data objectively.
Lustig on your part. Lustig even confirmed what he meant on this thread and he still got called out for his BS. And who are you? Post a pic on my website big shot.
Full of BS are you? You might even be denser than Fred. There are numerous hormones that are involved in the regulation of fat metabolism….. You also seem very stuck on hormones, but you ignore the fact that there are many non-hormonal factors that are involved in the regulation of adipose tissue stores.
There are also extremely complicated interactions between all of these factors, which ultimately lead to the regulation of body fat stores. The fact is, fat cells can and do take up glucose and fatty acids in the complete absence of insulin.
Fat cells can and do create triglycerides in the complete absence of insulin. The body is full of redundant biochemical pathways which are involved in the increase of adipose tissue stores.
And there are people here who posted that they have. Do their anecdotes not count? No, what is mind-boggling is how you continue to adhere to a simplistic, grade-school level of understanding of adipose tissue regulation.
After all, the guy has been on the Today Show twice. In reference to a direct comparison of fructose consumption by the Japanese in Japan vs. Diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications in Japanese migrants on the Island of Hawaii.
Japanese migrants and their offspring on the island of Hawaii and Japanese living in Hiroshima were examined for diabetes mellitus and its vascular complications. Death certificates of Japanese and Caucasians dying on the island during the past 26 yr were analyzed.
This suggests that diabetes is more prevalent in Japanese in Hawaii than in Japan, although lack of knowledge about the total population of Japanese migrants in Hawaii makes this generalization uncertain. The proportion of deaths attributed to diabetes was much higher in Japanese migrants and their offspring in Hawaii than in Japan. During the s, the proportional death rate from diabetes was about half as large in Japanese Hawaiians as in Caucasian Hawaiians, but it increased to become 1.
A nutritional study revealed that the total caloric intake was similar in Japanese in Hawaii and Hiroshima, although the estimated level of physical activity was less in the Hawaiian subjects. Consumption of animal fat and simple carbohydrates sucrose and fructose were at least twice as high in Hawaiian as in Hiroshima Japanese. Conversely, Hiroshima Japanese consumed about twice the amount of complex carbohydrate as the Hawaiian Japanese.
The proportion of deaths attributed to ischemic heart disease was higher in both diabetic and nondiabetic Japanese Hawaiians than in diabetic subjects in Japan. The rates were similar for Japanese and Caucasians in Hawaii. There was no evidence of an environmental influence on the development of microangiopathy retinopathy in diabetes, as the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy stratified for diabetes duration was similar in Japanese subjects in Hawaii and in Japan, and it was similar to previous reports from England.
On the other hand, diabetes alone did not appear to account for the greater prevalence of macroangiopathy in Hawaiian Japanese than in Hiroshima. Thus environmental factors, possibly including diet, appear to be involved in the development of macrovascular complications of diabetes. Surely a study done in discounts the anecdotes of people that were there from the late 90s to the present day.
Is being honest really so hard? I thought you had to pass ethics to be approved by the medical board. You gotta love the soup of confounding variables that limits epidemiological research. You can't cite a purported increase in fructose while at the same time omitting a decrease in physical activity. Furthermore, correlational research simply cannot establish causal relationships in the first place, so good luck with resting your stance on it.
Stick with me here, I'll cite more epidemiology to further illustrate my point. Here's a quote from a similar, but more recent correlational study [Diabet Med. Instead, you lasered in on sugar while dismissing the other factors. All this, while relying on correlational research. Similarly, neither did you during your lecture. My final point is that you have neglected to address the error of stating that the Japanese diet is fructose-free aside from fruit, and that it has no added sugars.
This is clearly an untenable claim, and it was the first, and one of the most memorable claims in your lecture. Aragon, since you seem to be unswayed by anything but randomized controlled trials in humans, and only those at fructose doses that are reasonable, and since you seem to like to journal quote, then here is just a sampling that demonstrates that fructose, and not just extra calories, is behind dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, visceral adiposity, and hepatic steatosis.
Studies in animals have documented that, compared with glucose, dietary fructose induces dyslipidemia and insulin resistance.
Although both groups exhibited similar weight gain during the intervention, visceral adipose volume was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose.
In contrast, hepatic de novo lipogenesis DNL and the hour postprandial triglyceride AUC were increased specifically during fructose consumption. Similarly, markers of altered lipid metabolism and lipoprotein remodeling, including fasting apoB, LDL, small dense LDL, oxidized LDL, and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle-triglyceride and -cholesterol significantly increased during fructose but not glucose consumption.
In addition, fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels increased and insulin sensitivity decreased in subjects consuming fructose but not in those consuming glucose. Effects of short-term feeding with high- vs low- fructose isoenergetic diets on hepatic de novo lipogenesis, liver fat content and glucose regulation. We studied the effects of fructose on intrahepatic lipid accumulation.
Seven subjects were scanned at baseline and after each of two successive 7-day isocaloric diets, one high in fructose, one high in complex carbohydrates in a randomized crossover fashion. These results suggest that fructose is unique in increasing intrahepatic lipid accumulation.
In addition, you have completely ignored the thread that by inducing insulin and leptin resistance, fructose increased and persistent food intake both at the hypothalamic and the nucleus accumbens level. So while controlled and pair-feeding fructose consumption does not result in increased total aggregate weight gain vs.
There are also new studies demonstrating changes in the nucleus accumbens by PET scan, which equate fructose with other substances of abuse. Evidence for sugar addiction: I shall not respond any further, as I have satisfied your criteria for objectivity and experimental and mechanistic rigor, and I have better things to do than engage in this continued puerile one-upsmanship. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial .
Pick a conclusion, cherry-pick til it looks right, and sell it to people without the scientific background to evaluate your claims. You have deftly evaded the acknowledgement of errors you made regarding the Japanese diet and the effect of fructose-containing sugars on satiety. Please see my comments after your sections: Specifically, soft drinks are rarely sweetened exclusively with fructose, and rarely is there an all-glucose soft drink available through major commercial pipelines.
Most nondiet soft drinks are sweetened with sucrose or similar ie, HFCS , which is roughly an even split of glucose and fructose. Achieving that total would require a daily intake of 7 cans of nondiet soda.
You mean to tell me that drinking 7 cans of nondiet softdrinks per day is a bad idea? Wow, thanks for the enlightenment. According to the text, the average intake of added sugars among Americans is This means that fructose intake is half of that, at 7. If anyone reading this even finds the abstract, please link me.
Can you tell me what fructose dose was used here? Again, the same principles of my argument would apply in this case. PS — Thanks for participating in the discussion, even if your last post was your white flag.
This thread has become a vindication for those of us who carry the good fight against the predatory media alarmism made ubiquitous by the egos who fail to temper their practice with ethics. For me, this thread has become a glowing illustration of positive community. It makes me smile knowing that a groundswell of critical thought is emerging against the dominant pseudo-scientific mainstream.
A man who has committed his life to solving the ailments of our civilization has cited his number of YouTube hits in response to a direct, contextual criticism of his work. This saddens me, but gives me hope knowing that people like Alan, and Jamie, and Leigh, and Lyle, and Mike, and James, and Roger, and JC, and everyone else who has built this rebellion are slowly making a name, making a dent into the rampant B. Although his ignorance still shines bright, hopefully he will remember the day when Alan Aragon laid the smack down on his high fructose candy ass.
Youtube hits to determine credibility? Only a few people on this board are experts regarding food, I suppose mr. Aragon is one of them, having watched the video of dr.