I thought long and hard about what I felt was a good topic to go out on, at least as far as my responsibilities for class, and I elected to write an example of how design classes should be taught, if and when i become the teacher rather than the student.
I'll start with a week by week glimpse of what i would teach;
Week 1:
Introduction, Design Processes, Assign groups for projects
Week 2-8
5 minute review of expected current stage of design by weeks end, in class design activity, discussion of blogs, clarify any uncertainties, meet with students for a quick progress report
Week 9
Review Expectations for Presentation, Discuss Blog
Week 10
Enjoy a product demo from each group
Other standard Syllabus stuff
Now, you are probably wondering, what about texts?
There are none, if you need to do readings here's a list of resources, but other than the descriptions i gave on the first day, you should be able to manage.
What is our homework/grading going to be like?
This is mostly going to be a class discussion and participation class, you should plan on being active at each meeting. Each week we will have a design challenge and some unusual tools to complete it with, on the other day, we will be discussing the design problems you discovered and wrote about on your blogs, they will be due at 8am on Thursday of each week.
Blogs? Whats a Blog?
For your blog (go create one and post it to our google group), style it how you want, and each week discuss something, it can be an object, an idea, a person, whatever! The only criteria is that the topic must have the need for revision and must fall prey to a critical design flaw discussed in the first week.
Depending on the number of students, we may go by volunteers, or random selections. Each student will need to briefly describe the product, the issues they discovered, and their suggestions for improvement. (it may be a good idea to focus on design flaws that are relevant to the stage of design you are in)
The Project
Depending on your groups strengths, you will be able to tackle different areas, but the goal is this, to bring a product at least to an advanced prototype phase that meets an established need. Your product can be software, law proposals or physical objects, but you must reach them through legitimate design practices. Write down everything you do to get there, date it, save it, have proof that you completed your research, your brainstorming, your testing, your revisions, your failures, keep records for EVERYTHING. Each week you will be asked to show some sort of evidence that you are progressing through the design process, at the expected pace. At the end of the quarter, I will expect a product unveiling. This unveiling should be treated as if it were a press conference, and you were convincing the world of its need and glory.
2 days of lecture, 7 days of practicing pressure situation design, 8 days of dissection of other designs, 1 day of clarifications.
This setup allows me to keep track of my students, avoids boring power points to give or receive, keeps the class challenging, engaging, and different class to class, semester to semester. The content for the class is going to be generated for me, and I will be able to be a moderator, picking interesting topics from areas my students are interested in. Additionally, on the off chance that i am unable to attend, am late, or just having a bad day, my assistant will not be hung out to dry, and i can rest easy knowing that the students will be practiced at the routine and with a little encouragement can run the discussion or activity without me (unless i happened to have the materials with me for the activity in which case i will always have a text based scenario for my students to go through).
Its not easy being a teacher, but its essential to be upfront and clear on what the expectations are, and i believe this system would do that, while keeping the grad student feel.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Now why is it we can't have a twist it on, twist it off faucet?
A fairly amusing line from Jerry Seinfeld in his 'I'm Telling you for the last time' show, but for some reason, the people who needed to hear it never did. All over the country public water dispensing devices have some kind of automatic shutoff feature, mostly because it was noticed that some people are not responsible enough to turn off the water themselves. Instead of restricting their use of such faucets, it was decided that the rest of us had to suffer through spring loaded faucets which dispense water only for a set amount of time (usually to short).
Now though, instead of addressing the original problem of humans being irresponsible, clever designers went with the 'automatic' system. Put your hands in the sink, water comes out, remove your hands, water goes off right? Sometimes. I will admit, the newest of these types of sinks in my experience have been perfect, but for many years it was a guessing game to figure out where to put your hands (and as i mentioned in other posts, costs will likely prevent upgrades).
To me though, we as humans have leaned towards fixing our short comings with technology a little to much, especially now that it seems technology is going to be able to do just about anything we can dream up. A recent movie, WALL-E, describes the direction we are heading quite well and i have to be honest, its just a little scary. Faucets, doors and toilets are one thing, but how long is it before we get rid of our responsibility to pick up after ourselves, go to the store, or even be human?
Automation is great, makes our lives easier, frees up our time to pursue other interests and always us to relax. Eventually all we may have to do is breath, but even that is automated by our body already!
Now though, instead of addressing the original problem of humans being irresponsible, clever designers went with the 'automatic' system. Put your hands in the sink, water comes out, remove your hands, water goes off right? Sometimes. I will admit, the newest of these types of sinks in my experience have been perfect, but for many years it was a guessing game to figure out where to put your hands (and as i mentioned in other posts, costs will likely prevent upgrades).
To me though, we as humans have leaned towards fixing our short comings with technology a little to much, especially now that it seems technology is going to be able to do just about anything we can dream up. A recent movie, WALL-E, describes the direction we are heading quite well and i have to be honest, its just a little scary. Faucets, doors and toilets are one thing, but how long is it before we get rid of our responsibility to pick up after ourselves, go to the store, or even be human?
Automation is great, makes our lives easier, frees up our time to pursue other interests and always us to relax. Eventually all we may have to do is breath, but even that is automated by our body already!
Red Light, Green Light.
Most of you who read this know what I’m talking about, the joy of driving on a developed road with stop signs, turn signals, and traffic jams. We wait for the signal to stop or go, but it always feels like there’s a lot more stopping involved, which we don’t want to do. My issue with older traffic lights rest in the annoying unnecessary wait times. The left turn at 1am across the major street that takes 3 minutes to get, even though there is no one coming, the red light at the intersection that isn’t even developed, or a personal favorite, the green light I have, but can’t use because the traffic in front of is stopped by a red light (Golf/Emerson and McCormick in Evanston, IL)
I know that the technology is out there to avoid these situations, coordinated traffic patterns, motion detectors and intelligence. But the problem persists, year after year, undoubtedly due to cost associated with replacing all of those circuits that control the billions of stop lights all over the world. But as a city planner, who in their right mind would not include the technology to eliminate these frustrating experiences? or what about the repairs that i see being done to older lights, but never get improved?
Any way you put it, its better for everyone if we have more efficient traffic systems, lower stress, lower emissions, fewer situations where I don't feel bad about breaking the law.
Rain Forest People Protection Act
So as I was sitting on my plane from the desert that is the southwest part of the
Well they didn’t exist in mass, and they didn’t know that the world was round and finite, but more importantly, we were in it for the money! The land of opportunity! The blessed land! It turns out we are far from a perfect land, but we are now one of the wealthiest, we do have it better than most of the world, and our biggest concerns don’t usually include how to protect ourselves from the elements or where our next meal will come from (maybe what our next meal will be or whether we should pay electric bills or car payments, but you get the idea)
We like to think of our society as one that is trying to protect the environment that’s left, especially when you consider all of the efforts that are put into stopping the clearing of other resources, planting new forests, limiting harvesting of fishing, but I realized its ok for us to do it because we can afford to. We got our share of the money, we worked hard destroying our once limitless environment and now we don’t want others to go down the same road of destruction, right?
Or is it more complicated? Let’s consider the nations along the equator where all of the rain forests are, most of the diversity of the plants of the world is located, where huge amounts of oxygen is produced and spread over the world, and where a lot of what we consider undeveloped countries exist. We get angry when we see those fires burning, the video of animals running from loggers, and the pictures of the rare and exotic creatures that hide there (for now). Why don’t we get as upset when we see the people with a need for clean water, protection from the elements, or food?
It seems to me that they have the resources to acquire all of those things, but for some reason don’t. I want to believe that the only answer is they are not as smart, not capable, not motivated, or otherwise not worthy, but that’s just a little too cruel and cold for me. We know they are human, capable of all of the things we are, and have the ability to do the things our society did, but are being discouraged from it. They could take charge and start farming and building their cities, roads and malls; yet they don’t (or perhaps not as fast as they could would be more appropriate).
I have a problem with our society supporting the protection of things and places that in the end are going to disappear no matter what we do. The earth’s population of humans is going to double, soon, and the food to feed those people is going to have to come from somewhere. I know we would all like to see those rare and exotic beasts still exist for our grandchildren, but as any one in the population genetics field will tell you, it’s already too late.
We may be able to keep them alive for a time, but eventually they will have to be inbred, and eventually they will not be able to produce viable offspring. Eventually, those forests are going to be cut down so the people can feed themselves, eventually they are going to create demand for housing, roads, cars, and everything else that we consider normal, and when it does, what then?
When we can no longer support the population with the surplus of our society, what will be more acceptable, clearing forests as we once did, or allowing billions to starve so we can have jaguars and orangutans? Maybe its not so black and white as that, maybe we can boost the production of farmlands already out there, maybe we can solve both problems, Maybe we won’t even be around that long if the world gets destroyed by global warming, but how can we truly justify preventing other nations from striving to improve their lives when we did just as they did during our development? We preach freedom, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but do those ideals stop with our borders?
I don’t know about you, but I like to think we have been going to war across the globe for the past 100 years for exactly that reason. But how do we go to war when the enemy is us? I always knew my shadow had it out for me; I’ll be back once I do it in.
SUN Glasses
Sun glasses, it seems that the only way to not have them is to just be an idiot. We know the sun hurts your eyes, you are going to get wrinkles faster without protection, and still some people don't wear them. Ok, fine, at least you aren't spending money (yet) on terrible sun glasses design. Sun glasses first and foremost should stop harmful rays from reaching your eyes, but take a look at these bad boys;
I understand that they are a fashion piece, but none the less, i can't help but notice that these glasses didn't follow any kind of logical design processes. They do not do what sun glasses are supposed to do, are not adjustable to any degree, and about all they have going for them is an obsession from the R&B artist circle. I could bash them all day, but perhaps I started out on the wrong path. Perhaps i am assuming that the persona for these are users who are out in the sun and need to be protected when in fact i couldn't be more wrong!
Lets investigate these glasses with a little reverse engineering and design.
What do these glasses actually do?
The Block around 45 percent of all light wave lengths striking the area around our eyes
They make it hard to see where the user is looking
They are usable at night, artificial light, and cloudy environments
They are extremely cheap to produce as they are just a plastic injection mold with 2 screws
What don't they do?
They don't block a reasonable amount of UV rays compared to any other outdoor eye wear (which block 99.9999 percent of all harmful rays)
They don't hold up well in harsh environments
Well with these observations, clearly the designers had a different persona in mind than i did, lets take a look...
They must have been targeting individuals who didn't have to worry about the sun a significant amount of time, so we are looking probably at individuals who are night travelers, live underground, or are from Alaska. We can safely say that the night owls are the primary persona as nearly every college student could be considered here at some point, not to mention the numerous night shifts and 24/7 walmart positions, the secondary are pasty white hermits or World of Warcraft players, and Alaskans probably were not considered as a viable market (harsh weather clause).
Since they block all light, not just UV, these glasses must be intended for users who need to block out their environments, but since they are so cheap, they must also have been meant to be either replaceable or affordable. If we stick to what we already know about their environment, then it would make sense for the college night owl user to be our focus; they can't handle to much input and need help blocking out some information, chances are they have just arrived at a bar/party or are waking up to some unpleasant realities. If someone knocks them off, they put them down and get stepped on, no problem! just get a new pair.
A weak persona to be sure, but its better than nothing.
I understand that they are a fashion piece, but none the less, i can't help but notice that these glasses didn't follow any kind of logical design processes. They do not do what sun glasses are supposed to do, are not adjustable to any degree, and about all they have going for them is an obsession from the R&B artist circle. I could bash them all day, but perhaps I started out on the wrong path. Perhaps i am assuming that the persona for these are users who are out in the sun and need to be protected when in fact i couldn't be more wrong!
Lets investigate these glasses with a little reverse engineering and design.
What do these glasses actually do?
The Block around 45 percent of all light wave lengths striking the area around our eyes
They make it hard to see where the user is looking
They are usable at night, artificial light, and cloudy environments
They are extremely cheap to produce as they are just a plastic injection mold with 2 screws
What don't they do?
They don't block a reasonable amount of UV rays compared to any other outdoor eye wear (which block 99.9999 percent of all harmful rays)
They don't hold up well in harsh environments
Well with these observations, clearly the designers had a different persona in mind than i did, lets take a look...
They must have been targeting individuals who didn't have to worry about the sun a significant amount of time, so we are looking probably at individuals who are night travelers, live underground, or are from Alaska. We can safely say that the night owls are the primary persona as nearly every college student could be considered here at some point, not to mention the numerous night shifts and 24/7 walmart positions, the secondary are pasty white hermits or World of Warcraft players, and Alaskans probably were not considered as a viable market (harsh weather clause).
Since they block all light, not just UV, these glasses must be intended for users who need to block out their environments, but since they are so cheap, they must also have been meant to be either replaceable or affordable. If we stick to what we already know about their environment, then it would make sense for the college night owl user to be our focus; they can't handle to much input and need help blocking out some information, chances are they have just arrived at a bar/party or are waking up to some unpleasant realities. If someone knocks them off, they put them down and get stepped on, no problem! just get a new pair.
A weak persona to be sure, but its better than nothing.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Unlock the Door to Get Locked Out
In order to truly appreciate the concept that I started with, you have to understand where I live. I reside in a collection of about 25 townhouse (I'm only in one) that form a square. In the middle there is a very expansive common area and underneath the common area is a shared drive through garage. The garage is heated (and cooled), has bike racks and enough spaces for each Unit to get 2 cars inside. The common area has access from all of the units 'front' doors, as well as 3 gate entrances out to the street. The garage has access from each unit via the 'garage' door, as well as 4 entrances from the common courtyard, and entrance and exit for the cars, and 2 doors that lead into the shared garbage area (4 dumpsters and 6 recycling tubs).
I'm sure you are all extremely interested in the layout of my building, and can't wait for me to tell you more, but the layout is not whats truly interesting, but the choices of locks for all of these doors, now that's interesting. You're probably assuming that all of these doors require keys in order to access them, and you'd be right, they do. You have also probably made the assumption that these are your standard keys, cut from a piece of metal, easy to replicate, cheap to replace if lost. Still 100 percent right, and further you are now thinking that they work like you would expect them too, stick the key in, unlock the door, enter. Here's where it gets a little tricky.
All of the doors have two lock points, a dead bolt above the handle, and one in the handle. If you only use the dead bolt then your assumption is correct, (unless we are talking about the back doors to each unit, but that's another story). However if you are using the handle lock, well, its not as functional to say the least. Its one of those push in to lock it types, but it also twists to lock as well. and if you have done both, the only way to unlock it is to use your key, and unlock it twice, once for the push, once for the twist. Got it? good, because your about to be locked out.
So i figured out fairly quickly to just use the dead bolt and not even bother with the handle lock (never mind its even a different key and i didn't want to carry it around). Besides, i was only going in through the garage anyway. But every other day or so, i have to drop some garbage or recycling material off in the garbage area, which as i mentioned has two doors for access. These doors have the same lock set up as all the other doors, a deadbolt and a funky handle lock, however they are way heavier, close really fast, and are probably blast proof if it came to that.
Well i don't know about you, but when I'm in my house, i typically just wear shorts, usually no pockets, and since i never have to go outside to get to the garbage, i don't even bother with shoes. So here i go with a nice smelly bag, over to the garbage, unlock the dead bolt, enter and throw my stuff in the dumpster. Sadly, i could probably just throw myself in, as the door has closed behind me, with the handle lock in tact. i reach for my keys, but alas, they are not with me. The only choice for me is to go out into the wild of Evanston with nothing my shorts.
Current time, 11am. as i have plenty of time to think, i wonder why they decided 2 locks were needed for the garbage doors, or any of the doors really. the courtyard is separated by a fence, but the fence is extremely easy to climb (for someone of my height anyway). So that's one safeguard with 2 locks that i simply avoided. As i sit on top of the walls, i realize i can just as easily avoid the garage door locks as well, i just have to wait for someone to use their car and open a nice big door for me. The 'front door' of my house is a double paned all glass door, which leads into said courtyard. If i was a burglar, nothing could be sweeter. Hell we could have 10 locks on these doors and it wouldn't make a difference, just kick in the glass and that's the end of it. The 'back doors' have a different kind of lock, but still, it is all glass and this time leads into an alley. As i can attest, individuals intent on breaking in can simply kick out the glass (attempted break in last spring) and if no one is there to stop them, well all of our locks did a whole lot of nothing.
Coming back to the garbage door, i discover that the least needed door for security is the one with the most security. Very heavy, all metal, fast closing, but what are we protecting? The only people who use it, or have access to it are the residents and the contracted waste removal crew. Are we afraid the contract crew is going to break in through the garbage on Tuesday's or Thursday's?
At any rate, as i suspected, i just had to wait for someone to let me into the garage, at which point i was able to reenter my house through my garage door. But i made a stop over at garbage door and relocked the dead bolt, and put up a sign saying "Unlock the Door to Get Locked Out". A warning for others, a reminder for myself.
I'm sure you are all extremely interested in the layout of my building, and can't wait for me to tell you more, but the layout is not whats truly interesting, but the choices of locks for all of these doors, now that's interesting. You're probably assuming that all of these doors require keys in order to access them, and you'd be right, they do. You have also probably made the assumption that these are your standard keys, cut from a piece of metal, easy to replicate, cheap to replace if lost. Still 100 percent right, and further you are now thinking that they work like you would expect them too, stick the key in, unlock the door, enter. Here's where it gets a little tricky.
All of the doors have two lock points, a dead bolt above the handle, and one in the handle. If you only use the dead bolt then your assumption is correct, (unless we are talking about the back doors to each unit, but that's another story). However if you are using the handle lock, well, its not as functional to say the least. Its one of those push in to lock it types, but it also twists to lock as well. and if you have done both, the only way to unlock it is to use your key, and unlock it twice, once for the push, once for the twist. Got it? good, because your about to be locked out.
So i figured out fairly quickly to just use the dead bolt and not even bother with the handle lock (never mind its even a different key and i didn't want to carry it around). Besides, i was only going in through the garage anyway. But every other day or so, i have to drop some garbage or recycling material off in the garbage area, which as i mentioned has two doors for access. These doors have the same lock set up as all the other doors, a deadbolt and a funky handle lock, however they are way heavier, close really fast, and are probably blast proof if it came to that.
Well i don't know about you, but when I'm in my house, i typically just wear shorts, usually no pockets, and since i never have to go outside to get to the garbage, i don't even bother with shoes. So here i go with a nice smelly bag, over to the garbage, unlock the dead bolt, enter and throw my stuff in the dumpster. Sadly, i could probably just throw myself in, as the door has closed behind me, with the handle lock in tact. i reach for my keys, but alas, they are not with me. The only choice for me is to go out into the wild of Evanston with nothing my shorts.
Current time, 11am. as i have plenty of time to think, i wonder why they decided 2 locks were needed for the garbage doors, or any of the doors really. the courtyard is separated by a fence, but the fence is extremely easy to climb (for someone of my height anyway). So that's one safeguard with 2 locks that i simply avoided. As i sit on top of the walls, i realize i can just as easily avoid the garage door locks as well, i just have to wait for someone to use their car and open a nice big door for me. The 'front door' of my house is a double paned all glass door, which leads into said courtyard. If i was a burglar, nothing could be sweeter. Hell we could have 10 locks on these doors and it wouldn't make a difference, just kick in the glass and that's the end of it. The 'back doors' have a different kind of lock, but still, it is all glass and this time leads into an alley. As i can attest, individuals intent on breaking in can simply kick out the glass (attempted break in last spring) and if no one is there to stop them, well all of our locks did a whole lot of nothing.
Coming back to the garbage door, i discover that the least needed door for security is the one with the most security. Very heavy, all metal, fast closing, but what are we protecting? The only people who use it, or have access to it are the residents and the contracted waste removal crew. Are we afraid the contract crew is going to break in through the garbage on Tuesday's or Thursday's?
At any rate, as i suspected, i just had to wait for someone to let me into the garage, at which point i was able to reenter my house through my garage door. But i made a stop over at garbage door and relocked the dead bolt, and put up a sign saying "Unlock the Door to Get Locked Out". A warning for others, a reminder for myself.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
LOSE WEIGHT FAST!
I don't know if anyone else laughs at diet programs like i do, but man have i seen some weird ones. Only eat meat! Don't eat any meat! Don't eat any fats! Don't eat any sugar! Just don't eat at all! And then there is the great food pyramid, which before its revision was even more difficult to functionally use. and what about the Super size me program where they 'proved' that by eating any thing and everything from a fast food restaurant they could kill themselves. Or the rebuttal program where another person ate selectively and moderately at a fast food restaurant for every meal and became more healthy!
All I'm saying is there are a lot of choices out there, and most of them will not help you permanently lose weight, mainly because there is no permanent loss of weight unless you always take steps to keep it off. The only real secret to weight loss is to burn more calories than you consume. Period. While this may seem simple, doing this one thing will result in the stated goal. Of course the hard part is eating less than you burn off, as just about every thing we can buy helps us go over.
Sugar, fats, dressings, greases: They are all tasty, and everything that is tasty has one or more of them, and usually a lot of calories too (OK maybe not EVERYTHING, but most things). So whats a person to do? Well obviously you can go ahead and eat whatever you want, as long as you still burn more calories right? The only problem is not everyone has the time to work out 5 hours a day, nor do we all have the ability to work out that long.
Well assuming we are consuming a reasonable amount of calories (2k-3k) and working out occasionally, theres those other things about health to think about. Vitamins, cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar and countless other factors that indicate a healthy human. Which i guess is where all of these unique diet plans sprang up. Someone must have been following one plan and discovered that they were not reaching the goals they wanted. Thus they experimented to find out what worked for them, and proclaimed to the world that they had the secret to dieting right!
But sure enough another person tried their plan, failed, and came up with their own that worked for them, and then proclaimed to the world that the others were wrong and they had the right diet plan! If we rinse and repeat this process for 50 years, well its easy to see how have so many diet plan choices today. What i find odd about all of these diets is that very few people have reasoned that perhaps something more is at work here, such as how individuals process foods differently, how genetic differences give some individuals the ability to eat some foods and not others.
I recently came across the first diet plan that actually makes sense in light of the past 50 years of scientific research called the Blood Type Diet (http://www.dadamo.com/). Essentially, it is wisely suggested that once your body breaks down foods into proteins, those protein interact with the proteins created by your body and are either allowed to enter into the blood stream or are rejected. Seems reasonable right?
Well everyone has a slightly different make up genetically, and each person therefore has a slightly different protein set in their blood. This means potentially there will be some proteins from food that we will be unable to process, some that we are able to process, some that react very poorly with our system, and some that seem to aid our body in its functioning. You can read the exact reasoning or watch the embedded videos for a more detailed explanation, but that's the general idea.
Really what I'm getting at is this is one of the first examples of and individual truly designing a diet plan, testing it in the field, analyzing the results, refining their plan, testing it, analyzing results, refining, testing, analyzing, repeat repeat repeat. This is exactly what we are supposed to be doing for our applications, and here someone is doing it for food! Personally i believe what Dadamo is suggesting about the connection between blood type, food, allergies and the like. But i more respect the process to which he has reached these conclusions, and the updating and on going testing of his theories.
Check it out, you may find your new favorite diet!
If you can't see the embedded video
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=obertancat
All I'm saying is there are a lot of choices out there, and most of them will not help you permanently lose weight, mainly because there is no permanent loss of weight unless you always take steps to keep it off. The only real secret to weight loss is to burn more calories than you consume. Period. While this may seem simple, doing this one thing will result in the stated goal. Of course the hard part is eating less than you burn off, as just about every thing we can buy helps us go over.
Sugar, fats, dressings, greases: They are all tasty, and everything that is tasty has one or more of them, and usually a lot of calories too (OK maybe not EVERYTHING, but most things). So whats a person to do? Well obviously you can go ahead and eat whatever you want, as long as you still burn more calories right? The only problem is not everyone has the time to work out 5 hours a day, nor do we all have the ability to work out that long.
Well assuming we are consuming a reasonable amount of calories (2k-3k) and working out occasionally, theres those other things about health to think about. Vitamins, cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar and countless other factors that indicate a healthy human. Which i guess is where all of these unique diet plans sprang up. Someone must have been following one plan and discovered that they were not reaching the goals they wanted. Thus they experimented to find out what worked for them, and proclaimed to the world that they had the secret to dieting right!
But sure enough another person tried their plan, failed, and came up with their own that worked for them, and then proclaimed to the world that the others were wrong and they had the right diet plan! If we rinse and repeat this process for 50 years, well its easy to see how have so many diet plan choices today. What i find odd about all of these diets is that very few people have reasoned that perhaps something more is at work here, such as how individuals process foods differently, how genetic differences give some individuals the ability to eat some foods and not others.
I recently came across the first diet plan that actually makes sense in light of the past 50 years of scientific research called the Blood Type Diet (http://www.dadamo.com/). Essentially, it is wisely suggested that once your body breaks down foods into proteins, those protein interact with the proteins created by your body and are either allowed to enter into the blood stream or are rejected. Seems reasonable right?
Well everyone has a slightly different make up genetically, and each person therefore has a slightly different protein set in their blood. This means potentially there will be some proteins from food that we will be unable to process, some that we are able to process, some that react very poorly with our system, and some that seem to aid our body in its functioning. You can read the exact reasoning or watch the embedded videos for a more detailed explanation, but that's the general idea.
Really what I'm getting at is this is one of the first examples of and individual truly designing a diet plan, testing it in the field, analyzing the results, refining their plan, testing it, analyzing results, refining, testing, analyzing, repeat repeat repeat. This is exactly what we are supposed to be doing for our applications, and here someone is doing it for food! Personally i believe what Dadamo is suggesting about the connection between blood type, food, allergies and the like. But i more respect the process to which he has reached these conclusions, and the updating and on going testing of his theories.
Check it out, you may find your new favorite diet!
If you can't see the embedded video
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=obertancat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
