This looks interesting, and like it could fill a gap for the planning of research grants. Any chance it could integrate task-level risk management plan, and export as a Gantt chart?
There is Gantt chart functionality but it is not ready yet and is not activated. In its current form it is meant (as one might expect) for scheduling tasks within a plan on different time scales. The connection to risk management is not very clear to me, but sounds interesting. Could you elaborate?
I think I might understand better what you mean: representing risks as tasks and placing them in a Gantt chart? This is an interesting idea. A pattern I employ is representing risks as items (those rectangles in the plan diagram) and mitigations or alternative approaches as other items. Sometimes both "pointing" to one element which represents a goal or similar, there are many variations possible. Very interested in your interpretation.
Yes I expressed myself badly. I meant risk mitigation plan. Usually in grant proposals we are asked to identify what are the major risks (in terms of incidence x impact) for each work package and produce a mitigation plan in case it happens.
Right, it's more clear now. As mentioned, Gantt chart functionality is being worked on. As for the rest, I feel that your use-case could indeed be expressed in YOTEY. Especially diagram items have deliberately free interpretation to model various, potentially abstract, entities and their relations. Thank you for the thoughts.
More like CICO, but make sure to eat high satiety carbs, a variety of vegetables, a lot of protein, enough good fats, and have a way to estimate your overall activity level and keep it constant or even slightly higher than usual (e.g. a step counter) to account for NEAT decrease.
The core issue of CICO as you pointed out is that it's a truism that ignores key aspects of a diet that usually come with a restriction in caloric intake - hunger can lead to poor food choices (decrease in TEF) and leads to lethargy (decrease in NEAT) which can account for up to 500 kcal/day (don't quote me on this, just trying to remember the papers I had read a long time ago) and completely negate the dieting effort. That's not even accounting the approximations of CI.
There are essentially zero papers which show anything even remotely resembling this. In basically every controlled environment, CICO more or less works, albeit not with perfect efficiency. It's not until prolonged starvation periods or massive overfeeding periods that any sort of genetic/epigenetic limiters come in (overfeeding tends to be prisoner studies, the MN starvation experiment is the most commonly cited/most data from long-term starvation).
If dieting works in controlled environments, the obvious conclusion is that dieting does not work in uncontrolled environment precisely because of the poor food choices, and because we, as humans, tend to discount the amount of calories in small things through out the day, nor do we rigorously measure.
All a "NEAT decrease" is saying is "people are more lethargic when dieting". It would be unsurprising if this were due to crash dieting, but this cannot "negate" a diet. Reduce calories further until the scale starts to move. Or be more active, despite lethargy.
Anything that states that an entire macronutrient is more satiating than another macronutrient is crank science and you should dismiss it. High fibre "carbs" for example are incredibly satiating.
I'm pretty sure that is one of those things that varies by person, or perhaps bt gut flora. Which foods spike blood sugar can vary widely by person. One lady in study became an outlier because the way her gut processed a normal tomato made her bloodsugar react like she had been doing shots of HFCS. I eat a wholesome bowl of steelcut oats and immediately crave carbs and sugar, I'm assuming because my bloodsugar spikes and crashes. But if I have a fried egg on some broccoli I'll be full for hours. I don't do keto. But fiber alone doesn't make me feel satiated because the signal saying my insides are full is getting overridden by the one saying my blood sugar is low. I'm not diabetic or hypoglycemic either, or at least the doc says I'm not.
This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.
Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety
Simultaneously:
lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger
This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
A few things that come to mind from having worked in many coffees in a few countries where those were implemented would be to institute an off-peak/peak time policy where people are asked not to work during peak time (e.g. lunch), have some sort of subscription model which comes with a faster wifi and X drinks a month.
It looks very nice. Only thing I am worried about is how you plan to make it sustainable. I don't fancy spending time filling a profile for everything to disappear in a few months.
That's fantastic. I was about to start a project in October building something that's almost completely there already, for a specific use case (annotation of therapy sessions).
