PDA

View Full Version : WashPost Article on Strength Training


Martha S. Gallagher
August 9th 05, 06:32 PM
Hey MFWers,

Did any of you check out the Washington Post's article last week about the
benefits of strength training?

If you didn't and you want to, the article is here:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/
AR2005080101245.html>

To the extent that I know enough to judge, the article seemed more or
less right to me. There was one section that definitely seemed wrong to
me though.

On weight training myths
<begin fair use>
Pumping iron burns a lot of calories. It feels like weight training should
translate to a big calorie burn, but brisk walking eats up far more
calories than weight training sessions. Even heavy lifting generally burns
"just 15 to 55 calories per workout," said Kraemer. "It's very low when
you calculate it. . . . People do a lot of resting between sets, and the
sets are usually very short." Circuit training, where you rev your heart
rate by moving rapidly from weight machine to weight machine, could help
burn a few more calories. </efu>

15-55 calories per workout??? Ok, I realize that on a straight calorie
burned basis, I can probably burn more just spending an hour on the
elliptical, but I certainly *feel* like I'm burning more calories than
that. Does this seem right to you all?

On a related note, I had a funny experience last night - my trainer had me
balancing on my back on the BOSU, then she had me extend my arms and legs
straight out (sort of a BOSU plank). She said to hold that for ten
seconds. I started shaking my head, no, that I couldn't hold it for that
long. But then I realized that in the time it had taken me to deny I could
do it, I'd already held it for 7. So I butched up for the last 3 seconds.
<g> It did really hurt, though. I hate ab work.

Martha

Blair P. Houghton
August 10th 05, 05:19 AM
Martha S. Gallagher > wrote:
>15-55 calories per workout???

Sounds low.

Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.

Hmm.

And it could be even less, considering that most weightroom
exercises target a very small mass of muscle in the body
compared with the average aerobic exercise. Or more,
if most of a person's exercises are big-muscle moves with
very heavy weights.

I didn't see the article. Did they caveat that low calorie
number by saying that the major portion of weight-training
calorie consumption comes from EPOC following the workout?

--Blair
"Journalism and science
aren't the same thing."

Curt James
August 10th 05, 05:56 AM
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Martha S. Gallagher > wrote:
> >15-55 calories per workout???
>
> Sounds low.
>
> Figure the way most people work out thSNIP
>
> I didn't see the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101245.html


> Did they caveat that low calorie number
> by saying that the major portion of
> weight-training calorie consumption
> comes from EPOC following the workout?

No.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Phil Budgie
August 12th 05, 04:01 AM
"Martha S. Gallagher" < my trainer had me balancing on my back on the BOSU,
then she had me extend my arms and legs straight out>>

Did she massage your bush?

The Bill Rodgers
August 12th 05, 12:27 PM
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:01:32 -0400, "Phil Budgie" >
wrote:

>Did she massage your bush?

avi please?

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
S**t list: Charlie Bendahoe, TBR imposter

In a sense
August 12th 05, 07:28 PM
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Martha S. Gallagher > wrote:
> >15-55 calories per workout???
>
> Sounds low.
>
> Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
> 500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
> seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
> minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.

What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
following statement:

"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"

90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

The Bill Rodgers
August 12th 05, 08:52 PM
On 12 Aug 2005 11:28:43 -0700, "In a sense" >
wrote:


>What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
>following statement:
>
>"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
>about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
>a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
>supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"
>
>90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
>bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
>daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
>most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
>are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
>wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

Absolutely.

TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."

Blair P. Houghton
August 13th 05, 07:28 AM
In a sense > wrote:
>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Martha S. Gallagher > wrote:
>> >15-55 calories per workout???
>>
>> Sounds low.
>>
>> Figure the way most people work out they're doing about a
>> 500 calorie/hour intensity, for two dozen sets at 15-30
>> seconds per set, or 3-6 minutes times 8 calories per
>> minute, giving 24-48 calories per hour.
>
>What surprises me most is that nobody has seen fit to comment on the
>following statement:
>
>"Added protein is needed to build muscle. Most Americans already eat
>about 90 grams of protein per day, 'enough protein to meet the needs of
>a [professional] bodybuilder,' Nieman said. 'To take in a protein
>supplement is just crazy. . . . It's not needed.'"
>
>90g of protein is enough to meet the needs of a professional
>bodybuilder? 90g sounds reasonably modest compared to most recommended
>daily intakes that I see suggested around here for mass building, and
>most MFW readers are (I assume) not "professional bodybuilders". So
>are most of us carniverous folks with reasonably healthy appetites
>wasting our time and money with protein supplements?

90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
and about a fifth of they would take in.

And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
a negative return on increasing protein intake when
exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

The problem comes when you have to start cutting fat and
carbs to fit in that much protein. You need the carbs,
and some of the fat. So the limiting factor should be your
choice of protein/carb/fat ratio and your calorie target,
which should be about 15% above maintenance.

--Blair
"Some nutritionists aren't all that smart."

Donovan Rebbechi
August 13th 05, 10:45 AM
On 2005-08-13, Blair P Houghton > wrote:

> 90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
> and about a fifth of they would take in.
>
> And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
> a negative return on increasing protein intake when
> exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
> 1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.

How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

JMW
August 13th 05, 04:24 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2005-08-13, Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>
>> 90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
>> and about a fifth of they would take in.
>>
>> And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
>> a negative return on increasing protein intake when
>> exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
>> 1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.
>
>How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
>once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
>at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?

Well, there is some evidence that pulsed increases in the amino acid
pool lead to increased muscle protein synthesis in conjunction with
heavy resistance training, even though the amino acid pool is already
well saturated. Insulin pulses are helpful in making this occur.
However, this is more a matter of timed protein intake.

BTW, "nitrogen balance" has no real physiological significance in and
of itself. It's just a marker, and not always a very good marker.

Blair P. Houghton
August 14th 05, 09:58 PM
JMW > wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>On 2005-08-13, Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>
>>> 90g is less than half of what a bodybuilder should take in,
>>> and about a fifth of they would take in.
>>>
>>> And he's wrong. There's no point at which you get
>>> a negative return on increasing protein intake when
>>> exercising for growth. There's a diminishing return above
>>> 1 gram per pound bodyweight, but it's still positive.
>>
>>How is it positive ? What are the advantages of taking in more,
>>once you already have a positive nitrogen balance (which happens
>>at about 0.6-0.8gm/lb btw) ?
>
>Well, there is some evidence that pulsed increases in the amino acid
>pool lead to increased muscle protein synthesis in conjunction with
>heavy resistance training, even though the amino acid pool is already
>well saturated. Insulin pulses are helpful in making this occur.
>However, this is more a matter of timed protein intake.
>
>BTW, "nitrogen balance" has no real physiological significance in and
>of itself. It's just a marker, and not always a very good marker.

Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
less steep there, it remains positive.

In general, any chemical process that can be driven by
increasing the concentration of a solute will be pushed
harder by increasing the concentration of that solute.
And the only chemical processes I know of that can't are
those for which the other reactants are already fully
consumed. Living cells will basically take all you can
give them and either grow bigger or divide. You'd have to
be deficient in other nutrients or hormones to be unable
to use the extra protein. Working out makes your
body produce the anabolic hormones. Eating enough
calories and protein and complex carbs and fats determines
whether the cells can afford to grow. (Almost nobody is
deficient for stored fat, but "essential fats" must be
ingested constantly). The rest is "vitamins and minerals"
which any multivitamin can supply in sufficient quantity.

The question is whether there are any deleterious side
effects to having an excess concentration of a solute.

If the solute is a steroid, the answer is YES.

If the solute is protein, and you're healthy to start with,
the answer is "not at any intake level I've seen studied."

--Blair
"YMMV."

Donovan Rebbechi
August 15th 05, 12:07 AM
On 2005-08-14, Blair P Houghton > wrote:
> Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
> that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
> still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
> nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.

I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
of 1gm/lb.

http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition

"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
optimal, based on what we've seen so far"

-- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.

> There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
> about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
> less steep there, it remains positive.

Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

WillBrink
August 15th 05, 12:11 AM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:

> Blair P Houghton > wrote:
> > In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
> > the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
> > the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
> > know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
> > already fully consumed.
>
> This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Nothing new as everything he posts is utter nonsense.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

JMW
August 15th 05, 02:03 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2005-08-14, Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
>> that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
>> still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
>> nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.
>
>I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
>Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
>of 1gm/lb.
>
>http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition
>
>"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
>optimal, based on what we've seen so far"
>
> -- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.
>
>> There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
>> about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
>> less steep there, it remains positive.
>
>Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
>at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
>is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
>or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
>shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?

He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton and
Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of Sports
Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
been saying for quite a while:

[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing
of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

Blair P. Houghton
August 15th 05, 06:18 AM
WillBrink > wrote:
>In article >,
> DZ > wrote:
>
>> Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> > In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>> > the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>> > the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>> > know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>> > already fully consumed.
>>
>> This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.
>
>Nothing new as everything he posts is utter nonsense.

Tell us again how whey is made from yams, Einstein.

--Blair
"Or shut up."

Blair P. Houghton
August 15th 05, 06:27 AM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>> already fully consumed.
>
>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.

Here. You look it up.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html

What I see is that the reaction is slowed by the new
reactant, but not stopped, and increasing the concentration
of the inhibited reactant still drives the reaction forward.

You have to increase the inhibitor at a rate equal with
the inhibited in order to get the negative-slope curves
at the bottom.

--Blair
"Don't let TrollBrink encourage you."

Blair P. Houghton
August 15th 05, 06:36 AM
JMW > wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>On 2005-08-14, Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>> Considering the studies (for which I *DO NOT* have links)
>>> that show that protein intakes upwards of 2.5 g/lb (lb, not kg)
>>> still produce more growth than lower intakes, I'd say the
>>> nitrogen balance marker myth is pretty well busted.
>>
>>I have a link which includes an interview with leading expert
>>Peter Lemon. He is the person who most people cite in support
>>of 1gm/lb.
>>
>>http://www.maxmuscle.com/index.cfm?fa=article&doc_id=82&subcat=basic_nutrition
>>
>>"Currently I'm recommending 1.6 pg/k to 1.8 pg/k because I think that's
>>optimal, based on what we've seen so far"
>>
>> -- Peter Lemon, leading researcher on protein.
>>
>>> There's a knee in the curve near 1 g/lb, iirc it was right
>>> about 1.1 g/lb. But while the slope of the curve gets
>>> less steep there, it remains positive.
>>
>>Could post some cites ? The reason I ask this is because no-one has ever
>>at any time posted a cite that supports 1gm/lb as an optimal amount (1gm/lb
>>is a rounding up of Lemon's numbers). I mean, can you look them up on pubmed
>>or something ? You at least know the names of some of the authors, so it
>>shouldn't be hard to dig them up, right ?
>
>He's just blowing smoke.

No, I'm waving my hands. The difference being, I've
actually seen the study and simply didn't save a cite
to it. I do not have the name of it nor the authors'
names, and couldn't come up with a decent set of keywords
for google to find it, if I even saw it online, which I
can't guarantee was the case.

Suffice to say, if I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't be saying
I'd seen it. I'm not Will Brink.

>There's no pat answer. However, Tipton and
>Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of Sports
>Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
>progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
>been saying for quite a while:
>
>[1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
>ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."

Not inconsistent with what I said. What that says
there is that there are convincing data to indicate
that it is necessary. But they are few in number.
Though the sentence doesn't say what "necessary"
means. Necessary for what? Maintenance? Growth?
Sparing? Survival? Hypertrophy? Hyperplasia? The sake
of argument?

>[2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
>metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the timing
>of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
>composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."

Again, not inconsistent. The fact that it is dependent on other
factors does not make it independent of rate of protein intake.

In my own opinion I wouldn't bother going above 2.2 g/kg
with any hope of magical gains. But I'd easily go from
1 to 2.2 g/kg and expect a noticeable improvement in both
growth rates during bulking (moderate overeating while
exercising) and sparing of muscle during cutting (moderate
undereating while exercising).

--Blair
"It won't bite."

WillBrink
August 15th 05, 03:14 PM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:

> Blair P Houghton > wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
> >>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
> >>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
> >>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
> >>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
> >>> already fully consumed.
> >>
> >>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.
> >
> > Here. You look it up.
> > http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html
>
> Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
> cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
> reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
> solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
> down.

Can you imagine what would happen in a biological system if there was no
substrate inhibition and or rate limiting reactions? Would be a total
mess.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

AT
August 15th 05, 03:33 PM
JMW > wrote in message
...
>
> He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton
and
> Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of
Sports
> Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
> progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
> been saying for quite a while:
>
> [1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
> ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."
>
> [2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
> metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the
timing
> of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
> composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."
>
> Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
> Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.

FWIW the full text is available as a requestable sample here:
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=lu8lp24f50t78u3c

Matthew

JMW
August 15th 05, 04:34 PM
AT wrote:
> JMW > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > He's just blowing smoke. There's no pat answer. However, Tipton
> and
> > Wolfe did a nice review in the January 2004 issue of Journal of
> Sports
> > Sciences, which started with Lemon's 1991 review article and
> > progressed from there. Basically, their conclusion was what I have
> > been saying for quite a while:
> >
> > [1] "[T]here are few convincing outcome data to indicate that the
> > ingestion of a high amount of protein (2-3 g/kg/day) is necessary."
> >
> > [2] "Acute studies suggest that for any given amount of protein, the
> > metabolic response is dependent on other factors, including the
> > timing
> > of ingestion in relation to exercise and/or other nutrients, the
> > composition of ingested amino acids and the type of protein."
> >
> > Tipton KD, Wolfe RR. Protein and amino acids for athletes. J Sports
> > Sci. 2004 Jan;22(1):65-79.
>
> FWIW the full text is available as a requestable sample here:
> http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/link.asp?id=lu8lp24f50t78u3c

I have the full text, sans graphs. FWIW, I have a lot of the articles
from the underlying studies by Tipton and Wolfe, too. Some folks
(e.g., Lyle) will argue about the significance of timed pulses of
dietary proteins and/or amino acids, but I think there is substantial
merit to that aspect. There is also merit to considering the quality
of the protein (EAA content), the speed of protein breakdown and
absorption in the gut, and the combination of the protein/EAAs with
heavy resistance training and insulin response from simple sugars.
Given what we know now, the old formula of X grams/kg/day as determined
by nitrogen balance is a pretty blunt instrument.

Blair P. Houghton
August 16th 05, 06:55 AM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>>>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>>>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>>>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>>>> already fully consumed.
>>>
>>>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.
>>
>> Here. You look it up.
>> http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html
>
>Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
>cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
>reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
>solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
>down.
>
>That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
>increases.

And what did I say?

Did I say that the concentration of inhibitors would be increased
while you were increasing concentration?

Or did I qualify my statement with this clause: "that
can be driven by increasing the concentration of a solute"?

By increasing the concentration of the inhibitor at the same
time as you increase the concentration of the reactant, you
are creating a different paradigm.

And you've snipped the part where I explained that graph to you.

But don't fret. Brink would have thrown up his heavyhands and
posted some gun-nut boilerplate by now.

--Blair
"Probably what he's followed up with."

Blair P. Houghton
August 16th 05, 06:56 AM
WillBrink > wrote:
>Can you imagine what would happen in a biological system if there was no
>substrate inhibition and or rate limiting reactions? Would be a total
>mess.

Not unlike your posts.

--Blair
"Pay attention and stop thinking
you're the only one thinking."

Blair P. Houghton
August 21st 05, 05:25 AM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>>>>> In general, any chemical process that can be driven by increasing
>>>>>> the concentration of a solute will be pushed harder by increasing
>>>>>> the concentration of that solute. And the only chemical processes I
>>>>>> know of that can't are those for which the other reactants are
>>>>>> already fully consumed.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is utter nonsense. Look up substrate inhibition.
>>>>
>>>> Here. You look it up.
>>>> http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html
>>>
>>>Pay attention to two bottom curves in Figure 1.9 there - these are the
>>>cases of prominent substrate inhibition. That is, instead of the
>>>reaction being "pushed harder by increasing the concentration of that
>>>solute" like you claim above the reaction rate peaks and then goes
>>>down.
>>>
>>>That is, the reaction rate goes down as the substrate concentration
>>>increases.
>>
>> And what did I say? Did I say that the concentration of inhibitors
>> would be increased while you were increasing concentration? Or did
>> I qualify my statement with this clause: "that can be driven by
>> increasing the concentration of a solute"? By increasing the
>> concentration of the inhibitor at the same time as you increase the
>> concentration of the reactant, you are creating a different
>> paradigm. And you've snipped the part where
>
>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>types of reactions.

Go reread that site. You didn't understand it.

--Blair
"I did."

JMW
August 21st 05, 09:34 PM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>
>> Go reread that site.
>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>> You didn't understand it.
>> --Blair "I did."
>
>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>substrate levels.
>
>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>
>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>
>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>
>It's Ok to be wrong.

Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
that he was wrong.

>Get over it and move on.

Never gonna happen.

Blair P. Houghton
August 21st 05, 10:49 PM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>
>> Go reread that site.
>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>> You didn't understand it.
>> --Blair "I did."
>
>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>substrate levels.
>
>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.

Reactant and substrate are two different things.

Which is why you can compute a ratio of them in the graph
at the bottom of that webpage.

In order to cause the inhibtion, you have to increase the
inhibitor along with the reactant.

That's what it says.

>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition

I'm not confusing them. I didn't bring them up, I didn't
impose any assumptions on them, and I didn't try to define
them.

You're making up your own problems.

>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.

False. You're misunderstanding all of chemistry.

Your ridiculous notion of biochemical reactions in which
you increase one reactant WHILE HOLDING THE OTHERS CONSTANT
(I've never removed that qualification from my argument,
while you seem to be ignoring it) and DON'T get more
product is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Which are the basis of all chemical reactions.

>It's Ok to be wrong. Get over it and move on.

I suggest you apply that to yourself. I'll be the first to
tell you when I'm wrong.

--Blair
"I'll be the only one in this room
competent to judge it, clearly."

Blair P. Houghton
August 21st 05, 10:51 PM
JMW > wrote:
>DZ > wrote:
>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>>
>>> Go reread that site.
>>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>>> You didn't understand it.
>>> --Blair "I did."
>>
>>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>>substrate levels.
>>
>>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>>
>>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>>
>>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>>
>>It's Ok to be wrong.
>
>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
>that he was wrong.

I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
lying through your teeth.

No, of course not. Nor would you admit it if you did.

>>Get over it and move on.
>
>Never gonna happen.

When I'm wrong I admit it. That's clear from all of my history.

--Blair
"Go prove some."

JMW
August 22nd 05, 12:52 AM
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>JMW > wrote:
>>DZ > wrote:
>>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>>>
>>>> Go reread that site.
>>>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>>>> You didn't understand it.
>>>> --Blair "I did."
>>>
>>>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>>>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>>>substrate levels.
>>>
>>>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>>>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>>>
>>>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>>>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>>>
>>>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>>>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>>>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>>>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>>>
>>>It's Ok to be wrong.
>>
>>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
>>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
>>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
>>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
>>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
>>that he was wrong.
>
>I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
>lying through your teeth.

"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
-- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
2003

"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
the facts."
-- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998

"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
subject or coming up with another insult."
-- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
1999


"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
loser. But never wrong."
-- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004

"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
-- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001

Proctologically Violated©®
August 22nd 05, 02:59 AM
Blair,
You are a blazing idiot.
You mouthe the words, probably mispronounce them, and f'sure don't
understand them.
DZ and JMW are largely correct.
You are trying to split hairs with a butter knife, and you can't even see
the hairs to begin with.

On the topic at hand, product inhibition is referred to as "negative
feedback", quite analogous to circuit theory.
There are, however, important examples of "feed forward" or "positive
feedback" systems, where product in fact accelerates enzymatic catalysis.
IIRC, one or two are right in the glycolytic pathway.

God's purpose for termites and BPHs:
So the rest of us can thank God we don't have to live with them.
Goodgawd.... the mere thought gives me the willies.

If I *had* to live with BPH, I'd wind up in jail, and I think it would be
well worth it. I'm sure the judge/jury would be sympathetic, as well.

I'd be most interested in an example or two where Blair admitted he was
wrong. I doubt if he can produce one.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
. ..
> DZ > wrote:
>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>>
>>> Go reread that site.
>>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>>> You didn't understand it.
>>> --Blair "I did."
>>
>>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>>substrate levels.
>>
>>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>
> Reactant and substrate are two different things.
>
> Which is why you can compute a ratio of them in the graph
> at the bottom of that webpage.
>
> In order to cause the inhibtion, you have to increase the
> inhibitor along with the reactant.
>
> That's what it says.
>
>>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>
> I'm not confusing them. I didn't bring them up, I didn't
> impose any assumptions on them, and I didn't try to define
> them.
>
> You're making up your own problems.
>
>>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>
> False. You're misunderstanding all of chemistry.
>
> Your ridiculous notion of biochemical reactions in which
> you increase one reactant WHILE HOLDING THE OTHERS CONSTANT
> (I've never removed that qualification from my argument,
> while you seem to be ignoring it) and DON'T get more
> product is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
> Which are the basis of all chemical reactions.
>
>>It's Ok to be wrong. Get over it and move on.
>
> I suggest you apply that to yourself. I'll be the first to
> tell you when I'm wrong.
>
> --Blair
> "I'll be the only one in this room
> competent to judge it, clearly."

WillBrink
August 22nd 05, 03:29 PM
In article >,
JMW > wrote:

> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
> >JMW > wrote:
> >>DZ > wrote:
> >>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
> >>>> DZ wrote:
> >>>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
> >>>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
> >>>>
> >>>> Go reread that site.
> >>>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
> >>>> You didn't understand it.
> >>>> --Blair "I did."
> >>>
> >>>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
> >>>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
> >>>substrate levels.
> >>>
> >>>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
> >>>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
> >>>
> >>>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
> >>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
> >>>with "product inhibition", e.g.
> >>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
> >>>
> >>>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
> >>>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
> >>>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
> >>>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
> >>>
> >>>It's Ok to be wrong.
> >>
> >>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
> >>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
> >>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
> >>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
> >>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
> >>that he was wrong.
> >
> >I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
> >lying through your teeth.
>
> "See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
> it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
> -- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
> 2003
>
> "I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
> fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
> about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
> forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
> acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
> the facts."
> -- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998
>
> "Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
> dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
> subject or coming up with another insult."
> -- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
> 1999
>
>
> "Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
> loser. But never wrong."
> -- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004
>
> "TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
> because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
> sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
> -- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001
>

Perhaps Blair will now supply even a single post where he admits he was
wrong...when monkeys fly out of my butt.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Blair P. Houghton
August 23rd 05, 05:17 AM
JMW > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>>JMW > wrote:
>>>DZ > wrote:
>>>>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>You are still confused. The "reactant" IS the "inhibitor" in these
>>>>>>types of reactions [substrate inhibition]
>>>>>
>>>>> Go reread that site.
>>>>> [http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/biology/enztech/inhibition.html]
>>>>> You didn't understand it.
>>>>> --Blair "I did."
>>>>
>>>>Here is a concise definition of substrate inhibition: "Catalytic
>>>>reaction rate inhibition BY SUBSTRATE", which occurs at elevated
>>>>substrate levels.
>>>>
>>>>The reactant (substrate) in such reaction is itself inhibiting the
>>>>reaction "substrate -> product" catalyzed by the enzyme.
>>>>
>>>>You are confusing "substrate inhibition", e.g.
>>>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/substrate_inhibition
>>>>with "product inhibition", e.g.
>>>>http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/product_inhibition
>>>>
>>>>More to the point, none of regulated reactions would allow increased
>>>>reaction efficiency when more substrate is added past the point of the
>>>>optimal concentration. Your simplistic notion of biochemical reactions
>>>>"add more fuel - get more fire" is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>It's Ok to be wrong.
>>>
>>>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
>>>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
>>>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
>>>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
>>>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
>>>that he was wrong.
>>
>>I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
>>lying through your teeth.
>
>"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
>it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
> -- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
>2003
>
>"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
>fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
>about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
>forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
>acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
>the facts."
> -- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998
>
>"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
>dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
>subject or coming up with another insult."
> -- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
>1999
>
>
>"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
>loser. But never wrong."
> -- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004
>
>"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
>because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
>sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
> -- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001
>

People claiming I won't admit I'm wrong are not proof I never do it.

Try again, or admit you're intellectually dishonest.

BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong, I don't remember who
sigvid is, Essoman was JV's butt-buddy in an empty troll
war against another newsgroup, I don't recall anyone named
Sppedy (or Speedy, if you've just ****ed up his name),
and quoting MoManProducts in a pejorative against me is
such a laughable abuse of citation that you should be
tied to a stake and stoned by every teacher you've ever
insulted with your presence.

But thanks for licking my ass all day like that. I bet
you loved the taste.

--Blair
"Just admit you're intellectually
dishonest. It'll shorten your
troubles."

Blair P. Houghton
August 23rd 05, 05:18 AM
Proctologically Violated©® > wrote:
>Blair,
>You are a blazing idiot.
>You mouthe the words, probably mispronounce them, and f'sure don't
>understand them.
>DZ and JMW are largely correct.
>You are trying to split hairs with a butter knife, and you can't even see
>the hairs to begin with.

Is this coming from the troll who still hasn't admitted
that he claimed exercise doesn't burn fat?

Thought so.

--Blair
"Your credibility is so negative
it improves your opponent's."

Blair P. Houghton
August 23rd 05, 05:25 AM
WillBrink > wrote:
>
>Perhaps Blair will now supply even a single post where he admits he was
>wrong...when monkeys fly out of my butt.

I don't doubt monkeys fly out of your butt every day Will.

But I don't accept dares from trolling dirtbags.

So I don't accept dares from you.

--Blair
"Go look it up yourself."

Blair P. Houghton
August 23rd 05, 05:45 AM
DZ > wrote:
>[...]

Okay, I missed that Km is a constant. I'd skimmed to the
picture and assumed it was a concentration of the enzyme.

But look again at what the graph actually says. It still
supports my original statement.

Reduction in the rate of reaction is not reversal of the
reaction.

In order to reduce the rate of reaction, you HAVE to
add more of the reactant, in this case to tie up more of
the enzyme.

But in so doing you also produce more of the product.

The only time you would stop producing more of the
product is when the enzyme is fully consumed in being
bound to multiple instances of the reactants.

Self-inhibitioin would explain the diminishing returns
shown for increasing protein intakes.

Which I had already said are shown to occur.

--Blair
"Tell Will that yams aren't inhibited
even when they're made into whey."

JMW
August 23rd 05, 06:52 AM
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
> --Blair
> "Just admit you're intellectually
> dishonest."

Ah, the irony ...

Lance Freezeland
August 23rd 05, 08:33 PM
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>JMW > wrote:
>>Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>>>JMW > wrote:

>>>>Not for Blair. His history in MFW, as well as in other newsgroups,
>>>>demonstrates that he will continue to double-talk, move the parameters
>>>>of the discussion, and do anything possible to avoid admitting that he
>>>>was wrong, mistaken, or otherwise in error. If none of that works,
>>>>he'll simply move into gratuitous insults. Blair will not concede
>>>>that he was wrong.

>>>I suppose you wouldn't believe me if I told you that you are
>>>lying through your teeth.

>>"See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You should try
>>it, as you were ridiculously wrong here."
>> -- Lance Freezeland, alt.sports.baseball.stl-cardinals, May 24,
>>2003

>>"I found out the hard way that Blair hates to admit he's wrong. In
>>fact, he can't admit he's wrong. He seems to think he knows something
>>about everything. So he sticks his foot in his mouth, and then
>>forevermore he stubbornly insists he's right and refuses to
>>acknowledge contradictory arguments, no matter how well-grounded in
>>the facts."
>> -- sigvid, az.general, March 24, 1998

>>"Blair cannot admit when he's wrong, even when this JVV guy has him
>>dead to rights. Instead, he sidesteps the issue by changing the
>>subject or coming up with another insult."
>> -- Essoman100, alt.sports.baseball.az-diamondbacks, October 15,
>>1999

>>"Some thoughts from Blair P. Houghton. BPH is a Troll. And a poor
>>loser. But never wrong."
>> -- Sppedy, rec.bicycles.misc, November 27, 2004

>>"TRANSLATION: 'My opinions should be universally regarded as fact
>>because I am never wrong. And when I am wrong, I am only being
>>sarcastic.' -Blair P. Houghton"
>> -- MoManProducts, alt.journalism.gonzo, January 26, 2001

>People claiming I won't admit I'm wrong are not proof I never do it.

>Try again, or admit you're intellectually dishonest.

>BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,

Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is.
I win."

When I reminded you that "I seem to remember you also saying that
Batista would not serve a day," your brilliant response was "I seem to
remember you saying you liked the taste of my foreskin."

I'd say that JMW here has you pegged, Houghton.

--
Lance

"In a world filled with hate, prejudice, and protest,
I find that I too am filled with hate, prejudice, and
protest." -- Bob Gibson

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 01:21 AM
DZ > wrote:
>The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
>molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
>time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
>means that LESS product is produced past that point.

There's one thing that would make that work.

Taking enzyme out of the system by overwhelming it with
reactant might allow the reaction to proceed in reverse
at a higher rate.

No. Doesn't work. As long as you're still adding reactant
you're still forcing what's left of the enzyme to move
the reaction forward.

Unless the reverse reaction can proceed without the
catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose into
the reactants.

So adding reactant can have diminishing returns, as it's
partially consumed in binding with enzyme. But some of
it will still be catalyzed by enzyme into product,
producing more product, not less.

--Blair
"His logic or mine. It's your
choice, and emotion is the wrong
reason to choose."

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 01:22 AM
JMW > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>>
>> "Just admit you're intellectually
>> dishonest."
>
>Ah, the irony ...

What? You've done it before?

--Blair
"You're the poster boy?"

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 01:41 AM
Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>
>Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is.
>I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance wrote:
>Blair wrote:
>>Lance wrote:
>>>Blair wrote:
>>>>10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>
>>>Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>
>>So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>
>No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

--Blair
"Any more questions, 'lawyer'?"

Peter Allen
August 24th 05, 02:09 AM
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>
>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>> is. I win."
>
> Speaking of irony:
>
> Lance wrote:
>> Blair wrote:
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>
>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>
>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>
>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>
> So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
that you posted it.

Peter

JMW
August 24th 05, 02:50 AM
"Peter Allen" > wrote:

>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>
>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>>> is. I win."
>>
>> Speaking of irony:
>>
>> Lance wrote:
>>> Blair wrote:
>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>>
>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>
>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>
>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>that you posted it.

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

Proctologically Violated©®
August 24th 05, 03:55 PM
Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a fukn
clue, is just dancing to save face.
What is his fukn point??
He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of fukn scientist,
but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
Mebbe a dildotante.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
>>>molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
>>>time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
>>>means that LESS product is produced past that point.
>>
>> There's one thing that would make that work. Taking enzyme out of
>> the system by overwhelming it with reactant might allow the reaction
>> to proceed in reverse at a higher rate. No. Doesn't work. As long as
>> you're still adding reactant you're still forcing what's left of the
>> enzyme to move the reaction forward. Unless the reverse reaction can
>> proceed without the catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose
>> into the reactants.
>
> Graphs in that link are produced assuming the reaction doesn't go the
> opposite way (product to substrate) at all. Note "k+2" in the reaction
> scheme above the graph and the absense of "k-2".
>
> Yet there is the optimal INTERMEDIATE substrate concentration that
> corresponds to the maximum reaction rate.
>
> The reaction rate (Y axis there) is like "speed of the car". The
> product concentration is like "miles traveled". You travel LESS total
> miles when going at a slower speed.

Proctologically Violated©®
August 24th 05, 04:03 PM
Let's see:
Blair.... TBR.... Blair.... TBR.... uummm, wow, decisions...
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>>>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>>>> is. I win."
>>>
>>> Speaking of irony:
>>>
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>>>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>>>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>>>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>>
>>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>>
>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly
>>amazed
>>that you posted it.
>
> It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
> reality where he's right and you're wrong.

Lance Freezeland
August 24th 05, 05:09 PM
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:26 -0400, JMW > gave us:

>"Peter Allen" > wrote:
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>>>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>>>> is. I win."
>>>
>>> Speaking of irony:
>>>
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>>>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>>>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>>>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>>
>>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>>
>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>>that you posted it.
>
>It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
>reality where he's right and you're wrong.

It's what he does. He's a complete waste of oxygen and time.

--
Lance

"Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit
him is a communist." -- Alvin Dark

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

WillBrink
August 24th 05, 05:19 PM
In article >,
Lance Freezeland > wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:26 -0400, JMW > gave us:
>
> >"Peter Allen" > wrote:
> >
> >>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
> >>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
> >>>>
> >>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
> >>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
> >>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
> >>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
> >>>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
> >>>> is. I win."
> >>>
> >>> Speaking of irony:
> >>>
> >>> Lance wrote:
> >>>> Blair wrote:
> >>>>> Lance wrote:
> >>>>>> Blair wrote:
> >>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
> >>>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
> >>>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
> >>>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
> >>>
> >>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
> >>
> >>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly
> >>amazed
> >>that you posted it.
> >
> >It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
> >reality where he's right and you're wrong.
>
> It's what he does. He's a complete waste of oxygen and time.

Exactly what his parents concluded after seeing the mutant pop out.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 06:31 PM
Peter Allen > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>
>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>>> is. I win."
>>
>> Speaking of irony:
>>
>> Lance wrote:
>>> Blair wrote:
>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>>
>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>
>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>
>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>that you posted it.

No, it's me winning again.

The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.

They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
saying he'd proved me wrong.

By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.

In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.

It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
want you to see the instances I was referring to.
Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer. And that in those
instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.

I have no problem with being wrong when I'm wrong.

I do have a problem with people claiming I don't admit
it, just because I've beaten them in an argument, and
with their deciding to do it en masse. The fallacy of
Appeal to Popularity is not repaired by making it Appeal
to Stupid Popularity.

--Blair
"You won't see them admitting that."

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 06:32 PM
JMW > wrote:
>
>It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
>reality where he's right and you're wrong.

No, that's reality.

You're the one overworking your imagination.

--Blair
"Ask Freezeland what state St. Louis
is in..."

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 06:34 PM
Proctologically Violated©® > wrote:
>Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a fukn
>clue, is just dancing to save face.

You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
exercise doesn't burn fat.

>What is his fukn point??

That you're a liar and anything you say about me is
negated by your refusal to develop credibility.

>He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of fukn scientist,
>but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
>Mebbe a dildotante.

I still bet you're using your real name.

--Blair
"Or wishing so."

Blair P. Houghton
August 24th 05, 06:38 PM
DZ > wrote:
>Blair P Houghton > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
>>>molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
>>>time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
>>>means that LESS product is produced past that point.
>>
>> There's one thing that would make that work. Taking enzyme out of
>> the system by overwhelming it with reactant might allow the reaction
>> to proceed in reverse at a higher rate. No. Doesn't work. As long as
>> you're still adding reactant you're still forcing what's left of the
>> enzyme to move the reaction forward. Unless the reverse reaction can
>> proceed without the catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose
>> into the reactants.
>
>Graphs in that link are produced assuming the reaction doesn't go the
>opposite way (product to substrate) at all. Note "k+2" in the reaction
>scheme above the graph and the absense of "k-2".
>
>Yet there is the optimal INTERMEDIATE substrate concentration that
>corresponds to the maximum reaction rate.
>
>The reaction rate (Y axis there) is like "speed of the car". The
>product concentration is like "miles traveled". You travel LESS total
>miles when going at a slower speed.

As in, the faster the enzyme is tied up, the fewer times
it can be recycled to promote reactant to product.

I'll buy that.

Although I don't think it applies to protein at the levels
we're talking about, because other data show that protein
intakes up to several g/kg bodyweight still produce better
results for more intake.

--Blair
"Win some, lose some."

Lance Freezeland
August 24th 05, 06:39 PM
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>Peter Allen > wrote:

>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>>that you posted it.

>No, it's me winning again.

>The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
>thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.

>They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
>same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
>when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
>I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
>had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
>he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
>saying he'd proved me wrong.

>By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
>and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.

You're absolutely delusional, Houghton. Are you medicated?

>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
>he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.

Nice try, but nobody's buying the bull**** you're selling here.

>It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
>claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
>want you to see the instances I was referring to.
>Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer.

The results say otherwise. I won't disparage your career, though.
I'm certain that you're an excellent gas station attendant.

--
Lance

"You wait for a strike, then you knock the **** out
of it." Stan Musial

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JMW
August 24th 05, 09:03 PM
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
> It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
> claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
> want you to see the instances I was referring to.
> Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer. And that in those
> instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
> he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.

I haven't disappeared, Blair. I'm just choose to ignore you sometimes.
You obviously suffer from some sort of psychopathology, probably a
severe personality disorder, and it makes you utterly incapable of
admitting error. Under those circumstances, nothing I say, nor
anything anyone else says, will suffice to prove you wrong; you will
continue twisting your arguments, changing the parameters, insulting
others, and claiming victory until people get tired of arguing with
you. All the regulars in MFW have caught onto this, just like folks
did in all the other newsgroups that you haunted in the past.

When things reach this point, the only action we can take is to
ridicule you. Eventually, you will tire of that treatment, and you
will run off to another newsgroup where you can attempt to nourish your
fragile ego. Until then, I will do as I see fit, and I imagine a few
others will do likewise.

Proctologically Violated©®
August 24th 05, 09:29 PM
"Lance Freezeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>Peter Allen > wrote:
>
>>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly
>>>amazed
>>>that you posted it.
>
>>No, it's me winning again.
>
>>The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
>>thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.
>
>>They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
>>same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
>>when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
>>I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
>>had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
>>he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
>>saying he'd proved me wrong.
>
>>By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
>>and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.
>
> You're absolutely delusional, Houghton. Are you medicated?
>
>>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>>I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
>>he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.
>
> Nice try, but nobody's buying the bull**** you're selling here.
>
>>It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
>>claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
>>want you to see the instances I was referring to.
>>Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer.
>
> The results say otherwise. I won't disparage your career, though.
> I'm certain that you're an excellent gas station attendant.

I doubt it.
Dollars to donuts he short-changes the patrons, rips off the owner, AND
chews everybody's ear off, or insults them, whilst doing it. Goodgawd....
Intellectual dishonesty, if we can give him that much credit, basically
knows no bounds, as *everything* is rationalized, in his favor, of course.
Apoplexy? Goodgawd... musta lerntid a new werd. The context barely makes
sense.

He has butchered every chemical concept he's touched so far, and nitpicks to
obfuscate the issues. He's ackshooly perty good at that.
Blare would be a good small-town politician.
Yeah, I'll vote for you, Blare, if you SMD.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
>
> --
> Lance
>
> "You wait for a strike, then you knock the **** out
> of it." Stan Musial
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

Proctologically Violated©®
August 24th 05, 09:36 PM
"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
...
> Proctologically Violated©® > wrote:
>>Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a fukn
>>clue, is just dancing to save face.
>
> You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
> exercise doesn't burn fat.

Ackshooly, it's taking me a while to put it together in a way so's that
you'll understand it.
But I realize now that this is probably impossible, so it'll be ready in a
cupla days. Really quite interesting. Also, some of us have real jobs, and
don't live w/ our moms.

Also, I would like to make a bet, but you have insufficient character to
honor anything, I'm sure, including not ****ing in yer mom's sink.
That bet would be: If I'm right, that you never ever post on any
fitness/health ng's again.
For all concerned.
Oh yeah, if I'm wrong, then, OK, you can SMD.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
>
>>What is his fukn point??
>
> That you're a liar and anything you say about me is
> negated by your refusal to develop credibility.
>
>>He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of fukn scientist,
>>but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
>>Mebbe a dildotante.
>
> I still bet you're using your real name.
>
> --Blair
> "Or wishing so."

Proctologically Violated©®
August 24th 05, 09:44 PM
I have a cat like Blare.
He's always runnin after ****, swattin at **** that don't exist, always
making trouble, stealing my food, ****ing all over the place--this cat will
**** on yer leg if you stand still long enough.
But, unlike Blare, this cat is actually real smart, and kind of cute.
Like Blare, also a neighborhood nuisance, in this case chasing people's
dogs'n'****, causing me all kinds of problems.
But unlike Blare, this cat is pretty bad-ass brave, whilst Blare is one of
these bratty noisey little fukn cowards.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
. ..
> JMW > wrote:
>>
>>It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
>>reality where he's right and you're wrong.
>
> No, that's reality.
>
> You're the one overworking your imagination.
>
> --Blair
> "Ask Freezeland what state St. Louis
> is in..."

WillBrink
August 24th 05, 09:49 PM
In article . com>,
"JMW" > wrote:

> Until then, I will do as I see fit, and I imagine a few
> others will do likewise.

Way ahead of you there John.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
August 24th 05, 10:38 PM
In article >,
"Proctologically Violated©®" > wrote:

> I have a cat like Blare.

Then you need to have it put to sleep.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Blair P. Houghton
August 25th 05, 12:38 AM
Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>Peter Allen > wrote:
>
>>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>>>that you posted it.
>
>>No, it's me winning again.
>
>>The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
>>thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.
>
>>They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
>>same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
>>when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
>>I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
>>had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
>>he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
>>saying he'd proved me wrong.
>
>>By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
>>and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.
>
>You're absolutely delusional, Houghton. Are you medicated?

So you still claim that 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is?

>>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>>I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
>>he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.
>
>Nice try, but nobody's buying the bull**** you're selling here.

You're paying for it in installments.

>>It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
>>claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
>>want you to see the instances I was referring to.
>>Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer.
>
>The results say otherwise.

You didn't even know what self-defense was.

>I won't disparage your career, though.
>I'm certain that you're an excellent gas station attendant.

I'm not a gas station attendant of any kind, but you're
a ****ty lawyer, and proud of it.

--Blair
"Laughing my ass off."

Blair P. Houghton
August 25th 05, 12:43 AM
Proctologically Violated©® > wrote:
>
>
>"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
...
>> Proctologically Violated©® > wrote:
>>>Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a fukn
>>>clue, is just dancing to save face.
>>
>> You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
>> exercise doesn't burn fat.
>
>Ackshooly, it's taking me a while to put it together in a way so's that
>you'll understand it.

Just post the outline. Comedy that good wouldn't need a
polished delivery.

--Blair
"Exercise doesn't burn fat.
Genius."

Peter Allen
August 25th 05, 02:11 AM
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Peter Allen > wrote:
>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave
>>>> us:
>>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>>
>>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game
>>>> suspension, you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0
>>>> than 20 days is. I win."
>>>
>>> Speaking of irony:
>>>
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my
>>>>> math.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I
>>>> first read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0
>>>> than 20 was to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were
>>>> wrong. You should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>>
>>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>>
>> I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm
>> truly amazed that you posted it.
>
> No, it's me winning again.
>
> The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
> thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.
>
> They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
> same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
> when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
> I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
> had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
> he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
> saying he'd proved me wrong.
>
> By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
> and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.
>
> In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
> 0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
> I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
> he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.
>
> It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
> claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
> want you to see the instances I was referring to.
> Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer. And that in those
> instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
> he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.
>
> I have no problem with being wrong when I'm wrong.
>
> I do have a problem with people claiming I don't admit
> it, just because I've beaten them in an argument, and
> with their deciding to do it en masse. The fallacy of
> Appeal to Popularity is not repaired by making it Appeal
> to Stupid Popularity.

The referee's whistle blows...

OWN GOAL!!!

Blair 0, JMW 2.

Half Time. Game will resume in 15 minutes, we seem to be on for a record
score here.

Analysis will follow after the break.

Blair P. Houghton
August 25th 05, 03:58 AM
Peter Allen > wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Peter Allen > wrote:
>>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>> Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave
>>>>> us:
>>>>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>>>>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>>>>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>>>>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game
>>>>> suspension, you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0
>>>>> than 20 days is. I win."
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of irony:
>>>>
>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>> Lance wrote:
>>>>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my
>>>>>> math.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I
>>>>> first read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0
>>>>> than 20 was to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were
>>>>> wrong. You should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>>>>
>>>> So you were wrong, and I proved it.
>>>
>>> I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm
>>> truly amazed that you posted it.
>>
>> No, it's me winning again.
>>
>> The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
>> thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.
>>
>> They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
>> same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
>> when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
>> I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
>> had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
>> he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
>> saying he'd proved me wrong.
>>
>> By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
>> and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.
>>
>> In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>> 0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>> I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
>> he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.
>>
>> It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
>> claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
>> want you to see the instances I was referring to.
>> Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer. And that in those
>> instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
>> he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.
>>
>> I have no problem with being wrong when I'm wrong.
>>
>> I do have a problem with people claiming I don't admit
>> it, just because I've beaten them in an argument, and
>> with their deciding to do it en masse. The fallacy of
>> Appeal to Popularity is not repaired by making it Appeal
>> to Stupid Popularity.
>
>The referee's whistle blows...
>
>OWN GOAL!!!
>
>Blair 0, JMW 2.

JMW thinks he's Freezeland, now you think Freezeland is JMW.

>Half Time. Game will resume in 15 minutes, we seem to be on for a record
>score here.

You're watching a rerun of a game from 2003. Which I won, btw.

>Analysis will follow after the break.

--Blair
"Is there anything GOOD on?"

Seth Breidbart
August 25th 05, 05:30 AM
In article >,
Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>I was wrong,

For Blair, saying "I win" is as close as he comes to admitting he's
wrong.

Seth
--
99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
it. -- Will Brink

Proctologically Violated©®
August 25th 05, 06:45 AM
I get the impression Blare is a young-ish buck, feelin his fukn Cheerios.
Can you imagine what this cocksucker will be like when he gets old?
That's if he is allowed to live, that is.

Wait--I got it.... he'll be like..... TBR!!! Goodgawd....

The next question is, how/why did the good people in Mass. let TBR live so
long??
Doesn't "justifiable homicide" cover such events legally?
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Seth Breidbart" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
>>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>>I was wrong,
>
> For Blair, saying "I win" is as close as he comes to admitting he's
> wrong.
>
> Seth
> --
> 99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
> it. -- Will Brink

Blair P. Houghton
August 25th 05, 06:27 PM
Seth Breidbart > wrote:
>In article >,
>Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
>>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>>I was wrong,
>
>For Blair, saying "I win" is as close as he comes to admitting he's
>wrong.

I'm sorry, logic-boy, but have you ever understood what
you were saying before saying it?

--Blair
"I do it all the time."

Lance Freezeland
August 26th 05, 08:53 PM
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:38:31 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>>Peter Allen > wrote:

>>>>I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
>>>>that you posted it.

>>>No, it's me winning again.

>>>The claim someone made at the head of this branch of this
>>>thread is that I never admit I'm wrong.

>>>They posted several anecdotal examples of others saying the
>>>same thing, which proved nothing, because people often lie
>>>when they're beaten in an argument. I mentioned that
>>>I'd beaten Freezeland in an argument to indicate that he
>>>had a grudge that would cause him to do that. Somehow,
>>>he noticed his name being taken in vain and butted in
>>>saying he'd proved me wrong.

>>>By reposting this I'm admitting now that I was wrong back then,
>>>and also proving that I'd proved him wrong back then.

>>You're absolutely delusional, Houghton. Are you medicated?

>So you still claim that 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is?

I never claimed that it was, dip****.

>>>In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
>>>0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
>>>I was wrong, but Freezeland didn't get it; in his apoplexy
>>>he had to **** up the math, allowing me to prove him wrong.

>>Nice try, but nobody's buying the bull**** you're selling here.

>You're paying for it in installments.

Well, I'm responding to an obvious troll, so you've got me there.

>>>It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
>>>claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
>>>want you to see the instances I was referring to.
>>>Because they prove he's a ****ty lawyer.

>>The results say otherwise.

>You didn't even know what self-defense was.

See, there you go lying again.

>>I won't disparage your career, though.
>>I'm certain that you're an excellent gas station attendant.

>I'm not a gas station attendant of any kind, but you're
>a ****ty lawyer, and proud of it.

You're probably not employed at all.

--
Lance

"You have to have a catcher or you'll have all passed balls."
-- Casey Stengel

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Lance Freezeland
August 26th 05, 08:54 PM
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:58:02 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:

>JMW thinks he's Freezeland, now you think Freezeland is JMW.

And we all think that you're a steaming pile of ****, Houghton.

--
Lance

"We don't rent pigs. Uva Uvam Vivendo Varia Fit."
Captain Augustus McCrae

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Blair P. Houghton
August 27th 05, 04:32 AM
Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:58:02 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>
>>JMW thinks he's Freezeland, now you think Freezeland is JMW.
>
>And we all think that you're a steaming pile of ****, Houghton.

You're the ****ty lawyer.

--Blair
"Get your own metaphors."

Lance Freezeland
August 27th 05, 05:49 PM
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:32:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:58:02 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:

>>>JMW thinks he's Freezeland, now you think Freezeland is JMW.

>>And we all think that you're a steaming pile of ****, Houghton.

>You're the ****ty lawyer.

Even if that were true, Blair, it would be better than being you.
What a sad and miserable existence you must have.

--
Lance

"There are three-hundred thousand sportswriters
and they're all against me. Every one of them."
-- Joaquin Andujar

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Blair P. Houghton
August 29th 05, 04:48 AM
Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:32:41 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>>Lance Freezeland > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:58:02 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > gave us:
>
>>>>JMW thinks he's Freezeland, now you think Freezeland is JMW.
>
>>>And we all think that you're a steaming pile of ****, Houghton.
>
>>You're the ****ty lawyer.
>
>Even if that were true, Blair,

It's true.

>it would be better than being you.
>What a sad and miserable existence you must have.

Your existence must be mediocre and weak if you'll set
the bar so low when comparing yourself to me.

--Blair
"I'm starting to pity you."

August 29th 05, 06:52 PM
I burn 50 calories just taking a dump.
Oh, I feel another 50 coming on...

That was the worst article about anything I have ever read.
And she looks like she is in great shape. Maybe that copy of muscle and
fitness is worth a few bucks after all...


Martha S. Gallagher wrote:
> Hey MFWers,
>
> Did any of you check out the Washington Post's article last week about the
> benefits of strength training?
>