PDA

View Full Version : Reducing Bodyfat


RM
October 31st 03, 08:50 PM
What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
of cardio and little of strength training.

I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
training mix in to my program

Any help will be appreciated

Thanks

B a r r y B u r k e J r .
October 31st 03, 08:52 PM
On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:

>What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?

Eat less, exercise more.

Choosing exercise that you enjoy will make it easy for you to do,
greatly increasing the chance of success.

Barry

bj
October 31st 03, 09:45 PM
And remember that this is not a temporary project.

It should be a lifestyle change of moderate eating and doing some exercise
on a regular basis. For the rest of your life.

The details will change over time (with the seasons, your mood, physical
conditions, the years...) but the framework stays the same.
Best wishes.
bj

"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." > wrote
in message ...
> On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:
>
> >What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?
>
> Eat less, exercise more.
>
> Choosing exercise that you enjoy will make it easy for you to do,
> greatly increasing the chance of success.
>
> Barry

Granola Bar
November 1st 03, 05:53 AM
(RM) wrote in message >...
> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> of cardio and little of strength training.
>
> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> training mix in to my program
>
> Any help will be appreciated
>
> Thanks

At 25% you wouldn't have to do much to bring it down. My brother had a
body fat about that high at 235 and he brought it down to 12% by
jogging 15 min before every workout. It took him about 3-4 months. If
your diet is already pretty good then I would suspect you're probably
not doing any cardio.

KennyCrox
November 1st 03, 01:27 PM
>
>What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
>say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
>of cardio and little of strength training.
>
>I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
>less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
>training mix in to my program

The best way is the combination of diet, resistance training and cardio. The
book, Body For Life, give you a good blue print for how to do it.

You want to eat 6 meals or snackes a day. One of the thing this does is help
increase your metabolism (Diet Induced Thermogenics).

Strength training will preserve muscle and help burn body fat. Rest periods
should be kept to 60 seconds between sets. Shorter rest periods will help
increase your metabolism.

The best method for cardio is "High Intensity Interval" session. You want to
push it hard for a minute then back off for a minute. Doing so jacks up your
metabolism for hours after your workout. Cardio session should be 20-30
minutes with this

Kenny

JP
November 2nd 03, 01:56 AM
Hi,

Our bodies are designed to store fat as a matter of survival. Therefore the
key to successful weight loss is to trigger the burning rather than the
storage of fat cells. Some dieters consider dairy products to be fattening,
but research suggests the opposite is true. Milk calcium is a fat burner.

Look at that American Dietetic Association's Article:
http://webdietitians.org/Public/NutritionInformation/index_17163.cfm

I take a product called Prycena. It provides a high concentration of dairy
calcium coupled with a unique hydrolyzed peptide assists in burning the fat.
It helps me.

Maybe it can be good for you too. You can read more here:
http://www.distribuweb.com/prycena/

Best Regards,
J.Pare, Montreal, Canada




"bj" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> And remember that this is not a temporary project.
>
> It should be a lifestyle change of moderate eating and doing some exercise
> on a regular basis. For the rest of your life.
>
> The details will change over time (with the seasons, your mood, physical
> conditions, the years...) but the framework stays the same.
> Best wishes.
> bj
>
> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." >
wrote
> in message ...
> > On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:
> >
> > >What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?
> >
> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >
> > Choosing exercise that you enjoy will make it easy for you to do,
> > greatly increasing the chance of success.
> >
> > Barry
>
>

RM
November 2nd 03, 12:31 PM
If I read you right, 15 mts jogging everyday followed by strength
training will help. Right?

(Granola Bar) wrote in message >...
> (RM) wrote in message >...
> > What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> > say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> > of cardio and little of strength training.
> >
> > I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> > less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> > training mix in to my program
> >
> > Any help will be appreciated
> >
> > Thanks
>
> At 25% you wouldn't have to do much to bring it down. My brother had a
> body fat about that high at 235 and he brought it down to 12% by
> jogging 15 min before every workout. It took him about 3-4 months. If
> your diet is already pretty good then I would suspect you're probably
> not doing any cardio.

Wayne S. Hill
November 2nd 03, 03:31 PM
RM wrote:

> If I read you right, 15 mts jogging everyday followed by
> strength training will help. Right?

That appears to be what he wrote, but doesn't mean it's right.

--
-Wayne

Chopper
November 2nd 03, 05:13 PM
1) shift your diet toward low fat food
2) cut back on overall calories
3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.

Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.

C



"RM" > wrote in message
m...
> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> of cardio and little of strength training.
>
> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> training mix in to my program
>
> Any help will be appreciated
>
> Thanks

DRS
November 2nd 03, 05:20 PM
Chopper > wrote in message
t
> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> 2) cut back on overall calories
> 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
> (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is
> hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots
> of calories.
>
> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.

Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to reconsider that last
bit?

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Wayne S. Hill
November 2nd 03, 05:48 PM
Chopper wrote:

> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food

Why?

> 2) cut back on overall calories
> 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>
> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.

Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?

--
-Wayne

Chupacabra
November 2nd 03, 07:08 PM
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:13:09 GMT, "Chopper"
> wrote:

>1) shift your diet toward low fat food

Not necessarily.

>2) cut back on overall calories

Correct.

>3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
>etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
>hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.

You're exceedingly lucky if you have five hours to spare to do cardio.

>Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>

Does a lot to affect overall body composition, though.



>
>
>"RM" > wrote in message
m...
>> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
>> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
>> of cardio and little of strength training.
>>
>> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
>> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
>> training mix in to my program
>>
>> Any help will be appreciated
>>
>> Thanks
>

Chopper
November 2nd 03, 09:51 PM
> > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>
> Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to reconsider that last
> bit?

No I don't. Why don't you tell us what, and how , weights do anything to
reduce body fat.

>



> --
>
> "Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
> ****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
> Andreas Prilop

A really stupid comment.
>
>

Chopper
November 2nd 03, 09:54 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper wrote:
>
> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>
> Why?

Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.

>
> > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> > are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> > mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> > mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> >
> > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>
> Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?

It's common sense.



>
> --
> -Wayne

Chopper
November 2nd 03, 09:55 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:13:09 GMT, "Chopper"
> > wrote:
>
> >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>
> Not necessarily.

Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been more
fat rich, and America has never been fatter.


>
> >2) cut back on overall calories
>
> Correct.
>
> >3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
(running
> >etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> >hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>
> You're exceedingly lucky if you have five hours to spare to do cardio.
>
> >Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >
>
> Does a lot to affect overall body composition, though.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >"RM" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> >> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> >> of cardio and little of strength training.
> >>
> >> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> >> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> >> training mix in to my program
> >>
> >> Any help will be appreciated
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >
>

David Cohen
November 2nd 03, 09:58 PM
"Chopper" > wrote
> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > Chopper wrote:
> >
> > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >
> > Why?
>
> Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.

But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"? What about the
fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?

> > > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> > > are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> > > mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> > > mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> > >
> > > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >
> > Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
>
> It's common sense.

Well, there you go. Argument winner, for sure.

David

David Cohen
November 2nd 03, 10:02 PM
"Chopper" > wrote
> "Chupacabra" > wrote
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been
more
> fat rich, and America has never been fatter.

Fat people fart more than skinny people. Fat people are more prone to
obesity. Therefore, farting causes obesity.

Your turn in the Nonsense Logic for the Syllogistically Impaired
Contest.

David
--
I we Todd did.
I sofa king we Todd did.

DRS
November 2nd 03, 10:09 PM
Chopper > wrote in message
et
>>> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>>
>> Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to reconsider
>> that last bit?
>
> No I don't. Why don't you tell us what, and how , weights do
> anything to reduce body fat.

Weight work increases lean muscle mass. Increased lean muscle mass improves
your metabolic efficiency. Not to mention that the actual workout consumes
around 400 calories per hour.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Keith Hobman
November 2nd 03, 10:27 PM
In article t>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food

Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs. Certain fats
and oils are good for you and you need fats.

Check out the Harvard diet for a pretty good summary and the science
behind this statement.

Good summary of the key points here.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.18/15-foodpyramid.html

The actual diet information is here.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html

This is a pretty good diet and its free.

> 2) cut back on overall calories

Yep. The big secret.

> 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
> etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>
> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.

The calories you burn in the actual activity may not be as significant as
raising your overall metabolism. Muscle burns calories - more so than
adipose tissue. So weightlifting may not burn a lot of calories in the
activity, but it raises the amount of calories you burn through the day.

None the less it is certainly a good idea to raise your activity level and
burn calories through activities as well. Walking is a good idea, as is
aerobics. But so is weightlifting.

>
> C
>
>
>
> "RM" > wrote in message
> m...
> > What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> > say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> > of cardio and little of strength training.
> >
> > I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> > less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> > training mix in to my program
> >
> > Any help will be appreciated
> >
> > Thanks

Chupacabra
November 2nd 03, 10:36 PM
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:55:48 GMT, "Chopper"
> wrote:

>
>"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:13:09 GMT, "Chopper"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
>Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been more
>fat rich, and America has never been fatter.


BZZZT!!! You lose. Thanks for playing. Normally we'd have lovely
parting gifts for you, but you're ****ing stupid, so you get nothing.

>
>
>>
>> >2) cut back on overall calories
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>> >3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
>(running
>> >etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
>> >hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>>
>> You're exceedingly lucky if you have five hours to spare to do cardio.
>>
>> >Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>> >
>>
>> Does a lot to affect overall body composition, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"RM" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
>> >> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
>> >> of cardio and little of strength training.
>> >>
>> >> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
>> >> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
>> >> training mix in to my program
>> >>
>> >> Any help will be appreciated
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >
>>
>

Wayne S. Hill
November 2nd 03, 11:52 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> Chopper wrote:
>>
>> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>
>> Why?
>
> Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.

So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats produce
satiety, while carbs don't.

>> > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>>
>> Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
>
> It's common sense.

Ah, common sense. I see. Well, there you have it.

Here's a couple of questions for you:
- For what period of time does a session of aerobic exercise
increase your metabolism?
- For what period of time does a session of weight training
increase your metabolism?

--
-Wayne

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 03:18 AM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper > wrote in message
> et
> >>> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >>
> >> Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to reconsider
> >> that last bit?
> >
> > No I don't. Why don't you tell us what, and how , weights do
> > anything to reduce body fat.
>
> Weight work increases lean muscle mass. Increased lean muscle mass
improves
> your metabolic efficiency.

Proof? Any estimate as to amount?


Not to mention that the actual workout consumes
> around 400 calories per hour.
>

I doubt if the average persons weights training consumes that much.


> --
>
> "Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
> ****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
> Andreas Prilop
>
>

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 03:22 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > > Chopper wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>
> But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?

Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
evolving, and the population is getting obese.


What about the
> fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?

Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you? "Good"
fat intake still promotes fat on the body.

>
> > > > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > > > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> > > > are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> > > > mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> > > > mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> > > >
> > > > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> > >
> > > Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
> >
> > It's common sense.
>
> Well, there you go. Argument winner, for sure.
>
> David
>
>
>

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 03:23 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote
> > "Chupacabra" > wrote
> > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > >
> > > Not necessarily.
> >
> > Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been
> more
> > fat rich, and America has never been fatter.
>
> Fat people fart more than skinny people. Fat people are more prone to
> obesity. Therefore, farting causes obesity.
>
> Your turn in the Nonsense Logic for the Syllogistically Impaired
> Contest.

Sure sure. I'll leave it to anybody reading this to figure out who is
impaired.



>
> David
> --
> I we Todd did.
> I sofa king we Todd did.
>
>

Bob Garrison
November 3rd 03, 04:21 AM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > "Chupacabra" > wrote
> > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Not necessarily.
> > >
> > > Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been
> > more
> > > fat rich, and America has never been fatter.
> >
> > Fat people fart more than skinny people. Fat people are more prone to
> > obesity. Therefore, farting causes obesity.
> >
> > Your turn in the Nonsense Logic for the Syllogistically Impaired
> > Contest.
>
> Sure sure. I'll leave it to anybody reading this to figure out who is
> impaired.
>

I figured it out. You are the one who is impaired.

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 05:22 AM
"Chopper" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
> > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > > > Chopper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >
> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is
it
> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>
> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like
marketing
> talk)

Only to morons.

> is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
> evolving, and the population is getting obese.

In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing with
frisbees causes obesity.

You don't do too good with logic, huh?

> What about the
> > fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>
> Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you?
"Good"
> fat intake still promotes fat on the body.

So, in your Moron Universe, we should forego the health-promoting and
life-extending benefits of proper fat intake because it "still
promotes fat on the body"?

Repeat five times fast:
I we Todd did.
I sofa king we Todd did.

David
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire

Aaron
November 3rd 03, 05:54 AM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > > > Chopper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >
> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>
> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
> talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
> evolving, and the population is getting obese.

no you dont, Std Us diet is around 33% total energy from fat, during
evolution it was higher than this (~40% or above depending on the
researcher) but it was a DIFFERENT fat (and total quantity could be
different as well - because percentages mean ****)

THe population is gettign fatter because they are eating more (energy) and
doing one ****ing site less (check out an aussie groups recent work of the
energy cost of doing dishes yourself, washing clothes yourself, climbing
stairs rather than lift/escilators)

>
> What about the
> > fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>
> Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you? "Good"
> fat intake still promotes fat on the body.

no, excess calorie intake promotes fat on the body.

People who randomly go on a low fat diet do not change caloric intake, and
most dont take into the fact that the body needs (some place it around 15%)
fat becuase it transports fat soluble vitamins, and it tastes good (satiety
etc)



> >
> > > > > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > > > > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> > > > > are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> > > > > mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> > > > > mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> > > >
> > > > Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
> > >
> > > It's common sense.
> >
> > Well, there you go. Argument winner, for sure.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Proton Soup
November 3rd 03, 06:50 AM
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:54:20 +1300, "Aaron" <hunt354 at hotmail dot
com> wrote:

>
>"Chopper" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Chopper" > wrote
>> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
>> > > > Chopper wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>> > > >
>> > > > Why?
>> > >
>> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>> >
>> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
>> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>>
>> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
>> talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
>> evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>
>no you dont, Std Us diet is around 33% total energy from fat, during
>evolution it was higher than this (~40% or above depending on the
>researcher) but it was a DIFFERENT fat (and total quantity could be
>different as well - because percentages mean ****)
>
>THe population is gettign fatter because they are eating more (energy) and
>doing one ****ing site less (check out an aussie groups recent work of the
>energy cost of doing dishes yourself, washing clothes yourself, climbing
>stairs rather than lift/escilators)

We also don't tote buckets of water from the well, plow the fields,
hoe the fields, chop the firewood, harvest the crops, stalk the deer,
weave the baskets, ...

I think people probably eat less these days, but also do even less.

Proton Soup

Aaron
November 3rd 03, 09:33 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> >> Chopper wrote:
> >>
> >> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>
> So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats produce
> satiety, while carbs don't.

carbs can produce satiety, and food volume can also increase satiety, but
thats beside hte point :)

--
Aaron


> >> > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >>
> >> Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
> >
> > It's common sense.
>
> Ah, common sense. I see. Well, there you have it.
>
> Here's a couple of questions for you:
> - For what period of time does a session of aerobic exercise
> increase your metabolism?
> - For what period of time does a session of weight training
> increase your metabolism?
>
> --
> -Wayne

John HUDSON
November 3rd 03, 10:20 AM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 05:22:36 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Chopper" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote
>> > "Chopper" > wrote
>> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
>> > > > Chopper wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>> > > >
>> > > > Why?
>> > >
>> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>> >
>> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is
>it
>> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>>
>> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like
>marketing
>> talk)
>
>Only to morons.
>
>> is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
>> evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>
>In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
>evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing with
>frisbees causes obesity.

I think this wry observation rather overlooks the fact that
competitive "frisbee" was enormously popular with Neanderthal Man, to
the extent that it extended to international competition.

The long arms of our forebears made it enormously difficult to get one
past or over on them!

Some of them were also quite fat, particularly those given to lifting
only weights and neglecting CV activity.

"You we Todd did."
"You sofa king we Todd did."

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 01:15 PM
Aaron wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> Chopper wrote:
>> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> >> Chopper wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>>
>> So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats
>> produce satiety, while carbs don't.
>
> carbs can produce satiety, and food volume can also increase
> satiety, but thats beside hte point :)

A low-fat diet permits much higher caloric intake before
satiety.

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 01:22 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "David Cohen" > wrote...
>>
>> But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal,
>> why is it necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat
>> food"?
>
> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
> like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much
> more fat than humans did while evolving, and the population
> is getting obese.

That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
intake has also decreased, but our activity level has fallen
even more.

>> What about the
>> fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>
> Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good
> for you? "Good" fat intake still promotes fat on the body.

Are you saying you should invite a frank deficiency of a class
of nutrients that have been shown to be necessary for health
in order to permit eating more carbohydrates?

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 01:29 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "DRS" wrote...
>> Chopper > wrote
>>
>> >>> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat
>> >>> reduction.
>> >>
>> >> Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to
>> >> reconsider that last bit?
>> >
>> > No I don't. Why don't you tell us what, and how ,
>> > weights do anything to reduce body fat.
>>
>> Weight work increases lean muscle mass. Increased lean
>> muscle mass improves your metabolic efficiency.
>
> Proof? Any estimate as to amount?

<sheesh> Do a PubMed search.

>> Not to mention that the actual workout consumes
>> around 400 calories per hour.
>
> I doubt if the average persons weights training consumes
> that much.

It kind of doesn't matter, because the metabolic lift from
weight training lasts for something like 24 hours. If the
average person starts weight training without changing diet,
they lose bodyfat and increase lean body mass.

--
-Wayne

Keith Hobman
November 3rd 03, 01:54 PM
In article t>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > > > Chopper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >
> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>
> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
> talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
> evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>
>
> What about the
> > fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>
> Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you? "Good"
> fat intake still promotes fat on the body.

Where did you get this idea?

Excess calories promote fat.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Theresa
November 3rd 03, 02:31 PM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
>
>> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>>> Chopper wrote:
>>>> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>>>>> Chopper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>>>
>>> So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats
>>> produce satiety, while carbs don't.
>>
>> carbs can produce satiety, and food volume can also increase
>> satiety, but that's beside the point :)
>
> A low-fat diet permits much higher caloric intake before
> satiety.

Well, depends on the carbs, right? Fruits and veggies fill you up.

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 02:37 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> > > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> > > > > Chopper wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > > >
> > > > > Why?
> > > >
> > > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> > >
> > > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is
> it
> > > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
> >
> > Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like
> marketing
> > talk)
> Only to morons.

Moron?
You're a pathetic twerp without honest arguments, and you resort to name
calling instead of presenting valid arguments. Are you peddling some garbage
product and you feel threatened by valid info?

>
> > is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
> > evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>
> In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing with
> frisbees causes obesity.

Anybody reading this, this stupid response ought to serve to show how much
weight to giuve this asshole's posts.

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 02:40 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper wrote:
>
> > "David Cohen" > wrote...
> >>
> >> But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal,
> >> why is it necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat
> >> food"?
> >
> > Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
> > like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much
> > more fat than humans did while evolving, and the population
> > is getting obese.
>
> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has fallen
> even more.
>

Bull****. Meat commonly available in food stores has 20 - 30 pct fat, wild
game has a few pct fat. You're incompetent. Where did all this fat come from
for prehistoric man - potato chips?

Hahahahahah, idiots

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 02:43 PM
"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > > "Chupacabra" > wrote
> > > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > > >
> > > > > Not necessarily.
> > > >
> > > > Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been
> > > more
> > > > fat rich, and America has never been fatter.
> > >
> > > Fat people fart more than skinny people. Fat people are more prone to
> > > obesity. Therefore, farting causes obesity.
> > >
> > > Your turn in the Nonsense Logic for the Syllogistically Impaired
> > > Contest.
> >
> > Sure sure. I'll leave it to anybody reading this to figure out who is
> > impaired.
> >
>
> I figured it out. You are the one who is impaired.
>

Sure, sure. And what kind of crap are you trying to sell?


>

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 02:44 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>> Chopper wrote:
>>
>> > Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
>> > like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat
>> > much more fat than humans did while evolving, and the
>> > population is getting obese.
>>
>> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
>> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
>> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has
>> fallen even more.
>
> Bull****. Meat commonly available in food stores has 20 - 30
> pct fat, wild game has a few pct fat. You're incompetent.
> Where did all this fat come from for prehistoric man -
> potato chips?
>
> Hahahahahah, idiots

I may be incompetent, but you don't know what you're talking
about.

--
-Wayne

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 02:45 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:55:48 GMT, "Chopper"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:13:09 GMT, "Chopper"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>
> >> Not necessarily.
> >
> >Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been more
> >fat rich, and America has never been fatter.
>
>
> BZZZT!!! You lose. Thanks for playing. Normally we'd have lovely
> parting gifts for you, but you're ****ing stupid, so you get nothing.

Sure, sure nitwit. A clown like you is right, and the medical profession is
wrong, sure sure.






> >
> >
> >>
> >> >2) cut back on overall calories
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >>
> >> >3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
> >(running
> >> >etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5
hour
> >> >hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> >>
> >> You're exceedingly lucky if you have five hours to spare to do cardio.
> >>
> >> >Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Does a lot to affect overall body composition, though.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"RM" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> >> >> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say
more
> >> >> of cardio and little of strength training.
> >> >>
> >> >> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25%
to
> >> >> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and
strength
> >> >> training mix in to my program
> >> >>
> >> >> Any help will be appreciated
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 02:48 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Chopper" > wrote:
>
> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>
> Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs. Certain fats
> and oils are good for you and you need fats.

Hahaah.
Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these nitiwts
think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.

Duuuuhhhhh



>
> Check out the Harvard diet for a pretty good summary and the science
> behind this statement.
>
> Good summary of the key points here.
>
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.18/15-foodpyramid.html
>
> The actual diet information is here.
>
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html
>
> This is a pretty good diet and its free.
>
> > 2) cut back on overall calories
>
> Yep. The big secret.
>
> > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
(running
> > etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> > hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> >
> > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
>
> The calories you burn in the actual activity may not be as significant as
> raising your overall metabolism. Muscle burns calories - more so than
> adipose tissue. So weightlifting may not burn a lot of calories in the
> activity, but it raises the amount of calories you burn through the day.
>
> None the less it is certainly a good idea to raise your activity level and
> burn calories through activities as well. Walking is a good idea, as is
> aerobics. But so is weightlifting.
>
> >
> > C
> >
> >
> >
> > "RM" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> > > say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> > > of cardio and little of strength training.
> > >
> > > I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> > > less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> > > training mix in to my program
> > >
> > > Any help will be appreciated
> > >
> > > Thanks

Keith Hobman
November 3rd 03, 02:51 PM
In article t>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chopper" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Chopper" > wrote
> > > > > "Chupacabra" > wrote
> > > > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not necessarily.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been
> > > > more
> > > > > fat rich, and America has never been fatter.
> > > >
> > > > Fat people fart more than skinny people. Fat people are more prone to
> > > > obesity. Therefore, farting causes obesity.
> > > >
> > > > Your turn in the Nonsense Logic for the Syllogistically Impaired
> > > > Contest.
> > >
> > > Sure sure. I'll leave it to anybody reading this to figure out who is
> > > impaired.
> > >
> >
> > I figured it out. You are the one who is impaired.
> >
>
> Sure, sure. And what kind of crap are you trying to sell?
>
>

Say Chopper...

Did you bother to read the information at the Harvard School for Public
Health site on diet that I posted?

You really should.

Summary here.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.18/15-foodpyramid.html

Complete info here.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Keith Hobman
November 3rd 03, 02:55 PM
In article et>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >
> > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs. Certain fats
> > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
>
> Hahaah.
> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these nitiwts
> think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
>
> Duuuuhhhhh

So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers and
milk shakes?

And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you figure
the grains came from?

Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
actually butchered your own game?

Bear? You call that lean?

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Alex Michaud
November 3rd 03, 03:33 PM
(RM) wrote in message >...
> What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men? Some
> say more of strength training and little of cardio and others say more
> of cardio and little of strength training.
>
> I want to get in to some exercise program to reduce my BF% from 25% to
> less than 20%. I am confused on the proportion of cardio and strength
> training mix in to my program
>
> Any help will be appreciated
>
> Thanks

Here is the magic and sucessful recipe to reduce bodyfat and this, for
your entire life (I know this works, I've done it and went from 27% BF
to 9% BF) :

1. Eat good food (forget fast-food and concentrate on natural,
non-processed food)
2. Drink plenty of water, at least 1 gallon per day (this helps to
eliminate toxins from your body thus activating the elimination of
"fat cells")
3. Do cardio first thing in the morning. (biking, running or just
walking at a good pace will do it. I use to take bike ride for 45
minutes each weekdays mornings)
4. STRENGHT TRAINING. This is the most important part of the recipe to
reduce bodyfat percentage and not just lose weight (which would
include fat loss as muscle loss which you don't want if your goal is
to look better and leaner).

Actually, muscle burns fat more efficiently than fat burns itself.
Everything is regulated by your basal metabolism. This is what your
body needs (in terms of calories) to survive while doing nothing. The
more you will be in shape (cardiovascularly and muscularly) the higher
will be your metabolism. That means you will be burning fat even while
doing nothing if your diet totals less calories than your metabolism
needs. Just don't fool yourself with all the stuffs that are sold all
around. I've used it before and paid for it later. So be natural, eat
natural, exercice your heart in the morning, drink a lot of life
liquid (water) and lift weight at least 3 times a week and I can
garantee that in 1 year from now, nobody will recognize you !!!

Hope this helps !!!!

jmk
November 3rd 03, 04:40 PM
On 11/2/2003 4:58 PM, David Cohen wrote:
> "Chopper" > wrote
>
>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
>>
>>>Chopper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>
>
> But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"? What about the
> fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?

How do you figure that?

"Even going as low as 10% won't hinder your absorption of fat-soluble
nutrients, says Alice Lichtenstein, DSc, professor of nutrition at Tufts
University. If you eat a 2000-calorie, 10% fat diet, you're still
getting 22 grams of fat, which is way above 6.5 grams of fat consumed by
those in this study's low fat diet, Lichtenstein tells WebMD, "It's
important to consume a nutrient-rich diet, and under normal
circumstances, vitamins and minerals will be absorbed.""
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/24/1728_57712.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}


--
jmk in NC

jmk
November 3rd 03, 04:44 PM
On 11/3/2003 8:54 AM, Keith Hobman wrote:
> In article t>,
> "Chopper" > wrote:
>
>
>>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>>>"Chopper" > wrote
>>>
>>>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Chopper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>>>>
>>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>>>
>>>But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
>>>necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
>>
>>Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
>>talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
>>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>>
>>
>>What about the
>>
>>>fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>>
>>Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you? "Good"
>>fat intake still promotes fat on the body.
>
>
> Where did you get this idea?
>
> Excess calories promote fat.

While I agree with you that calories are certainly important:

"Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess
dietary carbohydrate"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7598063&dopt=Abstract


--
jmk in NC

jmk
November 3rd 03, 04:50 PM
On 11/2/2003 6:52 PM, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Chopper wrote:
>
>
>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>>
>>>Chopper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>
>
> So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats produce
> satiety, while carbs don't.

Perhaps that is true for some people.

"Diets that are high in fat or are energy dense have a weak satiating
effect and promote a passive overconsumption of energy relative to need."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12566138&dopt=Abstract



--
jmk in NC

Keith Hobman
November 3rd 03, 05:02 PM
In article >, jmk
> wrote:

> On 11/3/2003 8:54 AM, Keith Hobman wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >>>"Chopper" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>>Chopper wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why?
> >>>>
> >>>>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >>>
> >>>But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> >>>necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
> >>
> >>Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
> >>talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
> >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >>
> >>
> >>What about the
> >>
> >>>fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
> >>
> >>Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you? "Good"
> >>fat intake still promotes fat on the body.
> >
> >
> > Where did you get this idea?
> >
> > Excess calories promote fat.
>
> While I agree with you that calories are certainly important:
>
> "Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess
> dietary carbohydrate"
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7598063&dopt=Abstract

Yes, if you eat 50% above maintenance calories. However, in the context of
eating under maintenance in order to lose bodyfat this doesn't have much
application (that I can see anyhow).

The key word in that summary being 'excess'.

What I was advocating was still a low calorie diet with the complex carbs
being in the form of whole wheat and fats being unsaturated vegetable
fats. This is not a high protein / high fat Atkins type of diet. Although
the benefit of those types of diets appear to be appetite suppression.

The Harvard diet is not really radical - but it is pretty good science IMO.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Theresa
November 3rd 03, 05:09 PM
Chopper wrote:
> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Chopper wrote:
>>
>>> "David Cohen" > wrote...
>>>>
>>>> But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal,
>>>> why is it necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat
>>>> food"?
>>>
>>> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
>>> like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much
>>> more fat than humans did while evolving, and the population
>>> is getting obese.
>>
>> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
>> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
>> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has fallen
>> even more.
>>
>
> Bull****. Meat commonly available in food stores has 20 - 30 pct fat,
> wild game has a few pct fat. You're incompetent. Where did all this
> fat come from for prehistoric man - potato chips?

Nuts? Seeds? Olives? Avocados? Et cetera.

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 05:09 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Chopper" > wrote:
>
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article
t>,
> > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > >
> > > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
Certain fats
> > > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> >
> > Hahaah.
> > Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
nitiwts
> > think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
> >
> > Duuuuhhhhh
>
> So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers
and
> milk shakes?
>
> And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you
figure
> the grains came from?
>
> Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
> actually butchered your own game?
>
> Bear? You call that lean?

Keith, Chopper may be the most ignorant moron to come along in a very
long time. He thinks prehistoric man butchered the game, but only ate
the tastiest fillets. Not the fat, the marrow, the brain, the liver,
all those yucky fatty pieces parts.

He is also clueless as to the body's need for EFA's.

I don't remember the rules: can a crossposted moron compete for Idiot
of the Month?

David

Theresa
November 3rd 03, 05:10 PM
Chopper wrote:
> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article t>,
>> "Chopper" > wrote:
>>
>>> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>
>> Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
>> Certain fats and oils are good for you and you need fats.
>
> Hahaah.
> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
> nitwits think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk
> shakes.
>
> Duuuuhhhhh


Grain?

Agriculture's about 10,000 years old, you know.

Keith Hobman
November 3rd 03, 05:11 PM
In article et>, "David
Cohen" > wrote:

> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article
> t>,
> > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
> Certain fats
> > > > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> > >
> > > Hahaah.
> > > Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
> nitiwts
> > > think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
> > >
> > > Duuuuhhhhh
> >
> > So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers
> and
> > milk shakes?
> >
> > And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you
> figure
> > the grains came from?
> >
> > Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
> > actually butchered your own game?
> >
> > Bear? You call that lean?
>
> Keith, Chopper may be the most ignorant moron to come along in a very
> long time. He thinks prehistoric man butchered the game, but only ate
> the tastiest fillets. Not the fat, the marrow, the brain, the liver,
> all those yucky fatty pieces parts.
>
> He is also clueless as to the body's need for EFA's.
>
> I don't remember the rules: can a crossposted moron compete for Idiot
> of the Month?

I'd love to see a good write-up and screw the roolz.

Cuz there is a lot of material here.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 05:16 PM
"jmk" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/2/2003 4:58 PM, David Cohen wrote:
> > "Chopper" > wrote
> >
> >>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> >>
> >>>Chopper wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>>
> >>>Why?
> >>
> >>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >
> >
> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is
it
> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"? What about the
> > fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
>
> How do you figure that?

On my fingers, with only one shoe off :)
>
> "Even going as low as 10% won't hinder your absorption of
fat-soluble
> nutrients, says Alice Lichtenstein, DSc, professor of nutrition at
Tufts
> University. If you eat a 2000-calorie, 10% fat diet, you're still
> getting 22 grams of fat, which is way above 6.5 grams of fat
consumed by
> those in this study's low fat diet, Lichtenstein tells WebMD, "It's
> important to consume a nutrient-rich diet, and under normal
> circumstances, vitamins and minerals will be absorbed.""
>
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/24/1728_57712.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

Micronutrient absorption is only one issue. The macronutrient benefits
of monounsaturated fats, DHA, EPA, GLA, etc., are another. Since
nearly no one consumes mostly EFA's, at least in the US, reducing
overall fat intake that low will result, in most people, in EFA
deficiency.

David

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 05:19 PM
"Theresa" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper wrote:
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> In article t>,
> >> "Chopper" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>
> >> Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
> >> Certain fats and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> >
> > Hahaah.
> > Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
> > nitwits think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk
> > shakes.
> >
> > Duuuuhhhhh
>
>
> Grain?
>
> Agriculture's about 10,000 years old, you know.

Good thing ancient man didn't have to shoot the game with
mini-revolvers :)

You're on parole.

David

Chupacabra
November 3rd 03, 05:40 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:55:41 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article et>,
>"Chopper" > wrote:
>
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article t>,
>> > "Chopper" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>> >
>> > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs. Certain fats
>> > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
>>
>> Hahaah.
>> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these nitiwts
>> think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
>>
>> Duuuuhhhhh
>
>So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers and
>milk shakes?
>
>And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you figure
>the grains came from?
>
>Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
>actually butchered your own game?
>
>Bear? You call that lean?

A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
- which is basically fat and gristle.

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 06:01 PM
> You really should.
>
> Summary here.
>
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.18/15-foodpyramid.html
>
> Complete info here.
>
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html
>

HI,

1] My original post said "1) shift your diet toward low fat food". Not "cut
out all fat and meat etc etc".
2] below is a clip from the website you mentioned - they mention "moderate
levels of protein and fat ". They don't seem to be advocating Atkins type
stuff.
3] The original post was from somebody who says he has 25% body fat and
wants to reduce that.

The guy asking the question very likely has an average American diet which
is HEAVY in fat. He needs to reduce that. The obesity problem in the US
doesn't result from people eating too many pretzels - it's largely from food
with excess fat, McDonalds type stuff.

There are always fitness fads coming and going. It's not a being part of a
fad to point out the large excess of fat in the US diet, and to corellate it
with the bizarre level of obesity in the country.

>>
studies show the Mediterranean diet, which has relatively high levels of
fat, is among the best for preventing cardiovascular disease, and that diets
that include moderate levels of protein and fat are more satisfying and more
effective for weight loss.
<<




> Keith Hobman
>
> --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Adam Fahy
November 3rd 03, 06:02 PM
Chupacabra wrote:

> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
> - which is basically fat and gristle.

Fat makes stuff taste good. I have no idea how you people can eat those
97% lean burgers &c. Bleh.


-Adam

Lee Michaels
November 3rd 03, 06:06 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:55:41 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article et>,
> >"Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article t>,
> >> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >> >
> >> > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs. Certain
fats
> >> > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> >>
> >> Hahaah.
> >> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
nitiwts
> >> think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
> >>
> >> Duuuuhhhhh
> >
> >So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers and
> >milk shakes?
> >
> >And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you figure
> >the grains came from?
> >
> >Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
> >actually butchered your own game?
> >
> >Bear? You call that lean?
>
> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
> - which is basically fat and gristle.
>
Didn't those guys eat about six pounds of meat each day?

jmk
November 3rd 03, 06:16 PM
On 11/3/2003 8:22 AM, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> Chopper wrote:
>
>
>>"David Cohen" > wrote...
>>
>>>But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal,
>>>why is it necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat
>>>food"?
>>
>>Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
>>like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much
>>more fat than humans did while evolving, and the population
>>is getting obese.
>
>
> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has fallen
> even more.

What sort of timeframe are you looking at? During the entire history of
mankind or something more recent? In the recent past, our caloric
intake has increased. I wouldn't be surprised to see that our activity
level has decreased during this time as well.

"According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES), total caloric intake by adults increased from 1,969
calories in 1978 to 2,200 in 1990."
http://www.healthstatus.com/calories_count.html



--
jmk in NC

Chupacabra
November 3rd 03, 06:19 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:02:34 GMT, Adam Fahy >
wrote:

>Chupacabra wrote:
>
>> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
>> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
>> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
>> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
>> - which is basically fat and gristle.
>
>Fat makes stuff taste good. I have no idea how you people can eat those
>97% lean burgers &c. Bleh.
>
>
>-Adam

Heh, who's "you people?"

I likes me fats.

Chupacabra
November 3rd 03, 06:20 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:06:02 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
>> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
>> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
>> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
>> - which is basically fat and gristle.
>>
>Didn't those guys eat about six pounds of meat each day?
>
>

Something like that, yeah.

Just think what they could have done on a decent AAS cycle.
Hyoooooooge...

determined
November 3rd 03, 06:25 PM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:13:09 GMT, "Chopper"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Bull****. Fat has is dense in calories, American food has never been more
> fat rich, and America has never been fatter.

Many many people, in an effort to lose weight, take your silly advice and
shift their diet away from fatty foods. They replace these fatty foods with
high carb foods, but never really look at what they are eating or how much.
Even you should know that you have to consume less calories than you burn to
lose weight. Fat is NOT the problem here - lazy fat ****s who stuff their
faces with whatever without ever really bothering to get a clue. Well,
here's a clue.

det

DRS
November 3rd 03, 06:37 PM
Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message


[...]

> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has fallen
> even more.

I don't agree that our overall calorific intake has dropped, especially in
North America which is notorious for the ever increasing size of restaurant
portions and the like. Here, as in Nth America, fast food joints have also
been targetted by nutritionists for having steadily increased the size of
their portions over the years. Given the extent to which people in our
societies eat out rather than cook for themselves these days I'm not at al
convinced that the *overall* calorific intake has dropped, especially since
whilst we've dropped a lot of fats from our diets we have replaced them with
things like sugars.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

DRS
November 3rd 03, 06:48 PM
roger > wrote in message

> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:48:32 GMT, "Chopper"
> > wrote:
>
>> Man evolved eating grains
>
> Oh really?? What grains did prehistoric man eat??

The distinction between prehistory and history is the invention of writing
(c. 5000BC?). Since farming predates writing by a few thousand years (c.
8000BC?) it is technically correct, although misleading without
qualification, to say that prehistoric man ate grains. This is not at all
the same as saying that "man evolved eating grains" if you consider homo
sapiens to have been around for maybe 250,000 years.

Today's historical insight was brought to you by the letter "M".

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Proton Soup
November 3rd 03, 07:03 PM
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:10:15 -0600, "Theresa" >
wrote:

>Chopper wrote:
>> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article t>,
>>> "Chopper" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>>
>>> Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
>>> Certain fats and oils are good for you and you need fats.
>>
>> Hahaah.
>> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
>> nitwits think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk
>> shakes.
>>
>> Duuuuhhhhh
>
>
>Grain?
>
>Agriculture's about 10,000 years old, you know.
>

It's a troll. Duh.

Proton Soup

Proton Soup
November 3rd 03, 07:45 PM
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:20:14 -0500, Chupacabra
> wrote:

>On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:06:02 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
>>> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
>>> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple foods
>>> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the tail
>>> - which is basically fat and gristle.
>>>
>>Didn't those guys eat about six pounds of meat each day?
>>
>>
>
>Something like that, yeah.

I caught the tail end of that show. Seems like they said ten pounds
per day. But they did spend a lot of time in the gym.

Proton Soup

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 08:05 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote
>
> A side note - I was bored last night and had the History Channel on.
> Some show was attempting to portray the kinds of foods the Lewis and
> Clark expedition ate. Apparently one of the expedition's staple
foods
> was beaver, and the most sought after part of the beaver was the
tail
> - which is basically fat and gristle.

"The Quest for Beaver and Tail: An Unauthorized Biography of Hugh
Hefner"

David

Van Bagnol
November 3rd 03, 08:21 PM
In article et>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

> Hahaah.
> Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these nitiwts
> think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
>
> Duuuuhhhhh

It seems that "Chopper" is either a troll, or one of those types who
doesn't take criticism well. It would seem best not to respond, or
simply to respond only with factual evidence rather than "common sense"
myths.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 09:03 PM
jmk wrote:

> On 11/3/2003 8:22 AM, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> Chopper wrote:
>>
>>>Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds
>>>like marketing talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much
>>>more fat than humans did while evolving, and the population
>>>is getting obese.
>>
>> That is totally false: our fat consumption has decreased
>> significantly as a fraction of total intake. Our caloric
>> intake has also decreased, but our activity level has
>> fallen even more.
>
> What sort of timeframe are you looking at? During the
> entire history of mankind or something more recent? In the
> recent past, our caloric intake has increased. I wouldn't
> be surprised to see that our activity level has decreased
> during this time as well.

In the whole history of the human race, up until the end of
the 1800's, healthy people ate a whole lot more than the
average American diet of the late 1900's. Our activity level
has greatly decreased in the last century or so.

> "According to the latest National Health and Nutrition
> Examination Survey (NHANES), total caloric intake by adults
> increased from 1,969 calories in 1978 to 2,200 in 1990."
> http://www.healthstatus.com/calories_count.html

A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories per
day of the 1800's.

--
-Wayne

DRS
November 3rd 03, 09:26 PM
Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message


[...]

> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories per
> day of the 1800's.

Where does that figure come from?

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Chopper
November 3rd 03, 10:39 PM
You hysterical nitwit. All any reasonable person has to do is read the crap
you write and the way you write it, to determine whether you have any
credibility or.



"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article
> t>,
> > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > >
> > > > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
> Certain fats
> > > > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> > >
> > > Hahaah.
> > > Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
> nitiwts
> > > think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
> > >
> > > Duuuuhhhhh
> >
> > So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers
> and
> > milk shakes?
> >
> > And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you
> figure
> > the grains came from?
> >
> > Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
> > actually butchered your own game?
> >
> > Bear? You call that lean?
>
> Keith, Chopper may be the most ignorant moron to come along in a very
> long time. He thinks prehistoric man butchered the game, but only ate
> the tastiest fillets. Not the fat, the marrow, the brain, the liver,
> all those yucky fatty pieces parts.
>
> He is also clueless as to the body's need for EFA's.
>
> I don't remember the rules: can a crossposted moron compete for Idiot
> of the Month?
>
> David
>
>

Hoff
November 3rd 03, 10:56 PM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> You hysterical nitwit. All any reasonable person has to do is read the
crap
> you write and the way you write it, to determine whether you have any
> credibility or.

You're right. He does. You don't.

>
>
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article et>,
> > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article
> > t>,
> > > > > "Chopper" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > > > >
> > > > > Totally wrong. Reduce overall calories and try and cut carbs.
> > Certain fats
> > > > > and oils are good for you and you need fats.
> > > >
> > > > Hahaah.
> > > > Man evolved eating grains and lean meat from wild game. But these
> > nitiwts
> > > > think overweight people just need more hamburgers and milk shakes.
> > > >
> > > > Duuuuhhhhh
> > >
> > > So where in the links I sent do you see a diet advocating hamburgers
> > and
> > > milk shakes?
> > >
> > > And where exactly in the evolutionary chain prior farming do you
> > figure
> > > the grains came from?
> > >
> > > Also wild game isn't all lean. Have you ever hunted in the fall and
> > > actually butchered your own game?
> > >
> > > Bear? You call that lean?
> >
> > Keith, Chopper may be the most ignorant moron to come along in a very
> > long time. He thinks prehistoric man butchered the game, but only ate
> > the tastiest fillets. Not the fat, the marrow, the brain, the liver,
> > all those yucky fatty pieces parts.
> >
> > He is also clueless as to the body's need for EFA's.
> >
> > I don't remember the rules: can a crossposted moron compete for Idiot
> > of the Month?
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
>

David Cohen
November 3rd 03, 11:35 PM
"Hoff" > wrote
> "Chopper" > wrote
> > You hysterical nitwit. All any reasonable person has to do is read
the
> crap
> > you write and the way you write it, to determine whether you have
any
> > credibility or.
>
> You're right. He does. You don't.

He WAS rather hysterical there, don't you think?

Probably from early multi-infarct dementia from a too-low fat intake.

David
--
"Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous"...Voltaire

Wayne S. Hill
November 3rd 03, 11:54 PM
DRS wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
>> per day of the 1800's.
>
> Where does that figure come from?

This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
up a decent reference, though.

--
-Wayne

Brian Link
November 4th 03, 02:37 AM
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:56:02 -0500, "JP" >
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Our bodies are designed to store fat as a matter of survival. Therefore the
>key to successful weight loss is to trigger the burning rather than the
>storage of fat cells. Some dieters consider dairy products to be fattening,
>but research suggests the opposite is true. Milk calcium is a fat burner.
>
>Look at that American Dietetic Association's Article:
>http://webdietitians.org/Public/NutritionInformation/index_17163.cfm
>
>I take a product called Prycena. It provides a high concentration of dairy
>calcium coupled with a unique hydrolyzed peptide assists in burning the fat.
>It helps me.
>
>Maybe it can be good for you too. You can read more here:
>http://www.distribuweb.com/prycena/
>
>Best Regards,
>J.Pare, Montreal, Canada
>
>
Crap -- where do I post to not be a top-poster? =P

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that in any other context I'd
regard that reply as spam. But good on the poster for at least
offering it in context. Unless he'd mentioned kettlebells, in which
case he'd be roundly trounced here..

Fat burning will do little good if your caloric intake exceeds your
caloric expenditure. That's the first step.

If you're dancing right around your basic metabolic requirements but
don't want to cut more calories, perhaps the Milk Diet may be useful.
But frankly it's easier, more useful to general health and less
expensive to just add some enjoyable exercise or chop off a couple
desserts. Simple. Maybe not easy.. but simple.

I didn't change my diet hardly at all, but went from zero exercise to
3+ sessions of resistance training a week, and dropped from around 22%
BF to the low teens. YMMV

BLink
Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

>
>
>"bj" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>> And remember that this is not a temporary project.
>>
>> It should be a lifestyle change of moderate eating and doing some exercise
>> on a regular basis. For the rest of your life.
>>
>> The details will change over time (with the seasons, your mood, physical
>> conditions, the years...) but the framework stays the same.
>> Best wishes.
>> bj
>>
>> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." >
>wrote
>> in message ...
>> > On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:
>> >
>> > >What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?
>> >
>> > Eat less, exercise more.
>> >
>> > Choosing exercise that you enjoy will make it easy for you to do,
>> > greatly increasing the chance of success.
>> >
>> > Barry
>>
>>
>

Art S
November 4th 03, 02:56 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I don't remember the rules: can a crossposted moron compete for Idiot
> of the Month?
>
> David
>

Yes, but he is noted as being a "non resident".

Art

Van Bagnol
November 4th 03, 12:55 PM
In article >,
> wrote:

> >Man evolved eating grains
>
> Oh really?? What grains did prehistoric man eat??

This is off-topic, but: wheat and barley (Fertile Crescent); millet and
rice (Asia); corn (Mesoamerica); quinoa and corn (Andes/Amazonia);
sorghum, pearl millet, African rice (West Africa); teff, millet, wheat
and barley (Ethiopia/East Africa); maygrass, barley, knotweed, goosefoot
(Eastern North America); sugar cane (New Guinea). Of course, they ate
other stuff too.

[See Smartt and Simmonds, eds., _Evolution of Crop Plants_ (Longman,
1995); Graham Barker, _Prehistoric Farming in Europe_ (Cambridge, 1985);
Richard Ford, ed., _Prehistoric Food Production in North America (Univ
of Michigan, 1985); Jane Renfrew, _Paleoethnobotany_ (Methuen, 1973).]

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

DRS
November 4th 03, 04:04 PM
Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
>>> per day of the 1800's.
>>
>> Where does that figure come from?
>
> This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
> up a decent reference, though.

I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive. Where
did all that food come from?

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

November 4th 03, 04:26 PM
In misc.fitness.aerobic Van Bagnol > wrote (Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:55:12 GMT):
> In article >,
> > wrote:

>> >Man evolved eating grains
>>
>> Oh really?? What grains did prehistoric man eat??

> This is off-topic, but: wheat and barley (Fertile Crescent); millet and
> rice (Asia); corn (Mesoamerica); quinoa and corn (Andes/Amazonia);
> sorghum, pearl millet, African rice (West Africa); teff, millet, wheat
> and barley (Ethiopia/East Africa); maygrass, barley, knotweed, goosefoot
> (Eastern North America); sugar cane (New Guinea). Of course, they ate
> other stuff too.

> [See Smartt and Simmonds, eds., _Evolution of Crop Plants_ (Longman,
> 1995); Graham Barker, _Prehistoric Farming in Europe_ (Cambridge, 1985);
> Richard Ford, ed., _Prehistoric Food Production in North America (Univ
> of Michigan, 1985); Jane Renfrew, _Paleoethnobotany_ (Methuen, 1973).]

From the standpoint of human evolution, the eating habits of
pre-agricultural/pre-paleolithic rather than pre-historic man
is the more relevant question. My understanding is that they were
hunter/gatherers and scavangers that ate almost anything, with a
diet consisting of huge quantities of plant fiber along with things
we would recognize as food today (berries, fruits, nuts, game birds
& animals), but also insects, leaves, seeds, roots, and carrion.
Actual grains as we know them were a subset of the "seed" category
and probably represented a fairly low percentage of calories.
(Basically, very early humans probably ate about what wild chimps,
gorillas, bonobos, etc., eat today.)

Greg Shenaut

Theresa
November 5th 03, 12:40 AM
> (Basically, very early humans probably ate about what wild chimps,
> gorillas, bonobos, etc., eat today.)

Ah, bonobos.

gps
November 5th 03, 02:42 AM
Chopper wrote:
>
> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Chopper wrote:
> >
> > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >
> > Why?
>
> Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
>
> >
> > > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises
> > > are good (running etc), one of the very best that is rarely
> > > mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour hike, especially in
> > > mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> > >
> > > Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat reduction.
> >
> > Did you just make that up, or read it somewhere?
>
> It's common sense.

Dude, if sense were common, more people would have it ($1 to Kathleen, I
believe), such as someone like yourself.
ps

Van Bagnol
November 6th 03, 01:12 AM
In article >,
> wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:55:12 GMT, Van Bagnol >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> >Man evolved eating grains
> >>
> >> Oh really?? What grains did prehistoric man eat??
> >
> >This is off-topic, but: wheat and barley (Fertile Crescent); millet and
> >rice (Asia); corn (Mesoamerica); quinoa and corn (Andes/Amazonia);
> >sorghum, pearl millet, African rice (West Africa); teff, millet, wheat
> >and barley (Ethiopia/East Africa); maygrass, barley, knotweed, goosefoot
> >(Eastern North America); sugar cane (New Guinea). Of course, they ate
> >other stuff too.
>
> A million years ago they ate this? 500,000 years ago they ate this?
> 200,000 years ago they ate this? 50,000 years ago they ate this??
> 10,000 years ago they ate this?

10,000. However, the question should have been more precise.
"Prehistoric" means before the advent of recorded history, a fairly
recent invention.

> Man has evolved over a couple million years. Grains have only been
> available for the last ten thousand years or so. Clearly man evolved
> for millions of years on a non-grain diet.

It's more relevant to look at nutritional habits at the emergence of H.
sapiens (Cro-Magnon or thereabouts), which is only 100 kya. Anything
earlier had different dentition which would have reflected a different
diet.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Van Bagnol
November 6th 03, 02:38 AM
In article >,
wrote:

> In misc.fitness.aerobic Van Bagnol > wrote (Tue, 04 Nov
> 2003 12:55:12 GMT):
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
>
> >> >Man evolved eating grains
> >>
> >> Oh really?? What grains did prehistoric man eat??
>
> > This is off-topic, but: wheat and barley (Fertile Crescent); millet and
> > rice (Asia); corn (Mesoamerica); quinoa and corn (Andes/Amazonia);
> > sorghum, pearl millet, African rice (West Africa); teff, millet, wheat
> > and barley (Ethiopia/East Africa); maygrass, barley, knotweed, goosefoot
> > (Eastern North America); sugar cane (New Guinea). Of course, they ate
> > other stuff too.
>
> > [See Smartt and Simmonds, eds., _Evolution of Crop Plants_ (Longman,
> > 1995); Graham Barker, _Prehistoric Farming in Europe_ (Cambridge, 1985);
> > Richard Ford, ed., _Prehistoric Food Production in North America (Univ
> > of Michigan, 1985); Jane Renfrew, _Paleoethnobotany_ (Methuen, 1973).]
>
> From the standpoint of human evolution, the eating habits of
> pre-agricultural/pre-paleolithic rather than pre-historic man
> is the more relevant question. My understanding is that they were
> hunter/gatherers and scavangers that ate almost anything, with a
> diet consisting of huge quantities of plant fiber along with things
> we would recognize as food today (berries, fruits, nuts, game birds
> & animals), but also insects, leaves, seeds, roots, and carrion.
> Actual grains as we know them were a subset of the "seed" category
> and probably represented a fairly low percentage of calories.

Agreed, though I'm not sure about the "fairly low percentage" of the
seed plants. Seeds and nuts are nutritionally and calorically dense
foodstuffs.

> (Basically, very early humans probably ate about what wild chimps,
> gorillas, bonobos, etc., eat today.)

Perhaps not. William Leonard of Northwestern University writes that
hominid bipedalism was an adaptative strategy to subsist on a diet
_different_ from that of the other great apes.

During the Pliocene climatic change when African forests became scarcer
and grasslands emerged, Australopithecines emerged and evolved in two
divergent directions: either become robust and be able to eat the
tougher but increasingly more abundant fibrous plants, or become gracile
and omnivorous to eat the animals that graze in the grasslands. As a
result, they needed to expand their territory, which encouraged bipedal
locomotion as a more economical means of long distance travel. Early man
(homo erectus) evolved from the gracile Australopithecines. Early apes
managed to stay in the forests, where their diet (and anatomy) remained
relatively unchanged.

See William R. Leonard, "Nutrition and Human Evolution",
<http://people.bu.edu/sobieraj/nutrition/EvolutionNutrition.html>

It might also have been the source of Sling Skate's factoid about a 4000
kcal in Early Man.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Van Bagnol
November 6th 03, 02:55 AM
In article >,
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

> DRS wrote:
>
> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
> >> per day of the 1800's.
> >
> > Where does that figure come from?
>
> This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
> up a decent reference, though.

I seem to recall something in James Loewen, _Lies My Teacher Told Me:
What Your American History Teachers Got Wrong_, on the health of the
population and the sophistication of agriculture in precolonial North
America, but I lent out that book and it was never returned, so I can't
be sure.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Van Bagnol
November 6th 03, 04:13 AM
In article >,
"DRS" > wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message
>
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> >> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
> >>> per day of the 1800's.
> >>
> >> Where does that figure come from?
> >
> > This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
> > up a decent reference, though.
>
> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive. Where
> did all that food come from?

Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more physical
and less sedentary.

According to physical activity tables, hunting and farming activities
are about 5-6 times the resting metabolic rate. That works out to
perhaps 300-400 kcal/hour, so 2000 kcal BMR + 2000 kcal from exertion
works out to 5-7 hours of farm labor a day. Seems plausible.

This may not have been the reference, but in the December 2002 issue of
_Scientific American_ there was mention that Neandertals were estimated
to have consumed >4000 kcal a day, extrapolated from the caloric
requirements of current-day nonindustrial populations. (William R.
Leonard, "Food for Thought: Dietary Change was a Driving Force in Human
Evolution", _Scientific American_ vol 287 no 6, Dec 2002, pp 113-114.)

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Brian Link
November 6th 03, 04:24 AM
On 3 Nov 2003 13:29:32 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>Chopper wrote:
>
>> "DRS" wrote...
>>> Chopper > wrote
>>>
>>> >>> Weight training doesn't do much to affect fat
>>> >>> reduction.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you absolutely, positively sure you don't want to
>>> >> reconsider that last bit?
>>> >
>>> > No I don't. Why don't you tell us what, and how ,
>>> > weights do anything to reduce body fat.
>>>
>>> Weight work increases lean muscle mass. Increased lean
>>> muscle mass improves your metabolic efficiency.
>>
>> Proof? Any estimate as to amount?
>
><sheesh> Do a PubMed search.
>
>>> Not to mention that the actual workout consumes
>>> around 400 calories per hour.
>>
>> I doubt if the average persons weights training consumes
>> that much.
>
>It kind of doesn't matter, because the metabolic lift from
>weight training lasts for something like 24 hours. If the
>average person starts weight training without changing diet,
>they lose bodyfat and increase lean body mass.

< (raises hand)

no diet change, from zero to four workouts a week, resistance training
only. Dropped from ~22% to ~12% BF in six months.

Whee

Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Aaron
November 6th 03, 06:53 AM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:54:20 +1300, "Aaron" <hunt354 at hotmail dot
> com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chopper" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >>
> >> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Chopper" > wrote
> >> > > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> >> > > > Chopper wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Why?
> >> > >
> >> > > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >> >
> >> > But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> >> > necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
> >>
> >> Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like
marketing
> >> talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
while
> >> evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >
> >no you dont, Std Us diet is around 33% total energy from fat, during
> >evolution it was higher than this (~40% or above depending on the
> >researcher) but it was a DIFFERENT fat (and total quantity could be
> >different as well - because percentages mean ****)
> >
> >THe population is gettign fatter because they are eating more (energy)
and
> >doing one ****ing site less (check out an aussie groups recent work of
the
> >energy cost of doing dishes yourself, washing clothes yourself, climbing
> >stairs rather than lift/escilators)
>
> We also don't tote buckets of water from the well, plow the fields,
> hoe the fields, chop the firewood, harvest the crops, stalk the deer,
> weave the baskets, ...
>
> I think people probably eat less these days, but also do even less.
>
> Proton Soup
>

yes they probably eat less now than maybe 100years ago, however we dont have
nationally represented data from 100years ago, but we do from just around
the start of the obesity rise (the origonal NHANES for you american types)

But, people 100years ago could have possibly eaten less, because htey were
poor and stuff, today we have the amazing advantage of even the poor being
able to eat excessive calories.
--
Aaron

Aaron
November 6th 03, 06:58 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> DRS wrote:
>
> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
> >> per day of the 1800's.
> >
> > Where does that figure come from?
>
> This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
> up a decent reference, though.
>
> --
> -Wayne

you wont find it, at least not on the same 'scale' as from the NHANES
(nationally representative). Also have to be careful of the reliability of
the data as well (food sources, measures etc)

But also, while the neanderthals may have eaten 4000kcals some days, for
months on end they also starved (ah, winters so much fun).

it all evened out in the end

You also have to add back on the 'lying' factor that is around 15%
additional calories, if i remember my under-reporting data from nhanes 2


--
Aaron

Aaron
November 6th 03, 07:01 AM
"jmk" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/3/2003 8:54 AM, Keith Hobman wrote:
> > In article t>,
> > "Chopper" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >>>"Chopper" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>>Chopper wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why?
> >>>>
> >>>>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >>>
> >>>But if your total caloric energy balance achieves the goal, why is it
> >>>necessary to "shift your diet toward low fat food"?
> >>
> >>Most people's "total caloric energy balance" (this sounds like marketing
> >>talk) is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
while
> >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >>
> >>
> >>What about the
> >>
> >>>fat-soluble nutrients, and the omega-3 fatty acids?
> >>
> >>Is your point that these raise HDL, and are therefore good for you?
"Good"
> >>fat intake still promotes fat on the body.
> >
> >
> > Where did you get this idea?
> >
> > Excess calories promote fat.
>
> While I agree with you that calories are certainly important:
>
> "Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess
> dietary carbohydrate"
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=7598063&dopt=Abstract


read the absolute point at the bottom of the research (there is also others
showing no difference, but I cant be stuffed finding them)
"and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period." that is
because during the early part of overfeeding, the subjects had sub-maximal
glycogen stores. Once topped out, all overfeeding will equate to a similar
fat gain (not significantly different)
I have the paper that you quoted somewhere, and from memory the actual
differences were 3/5 of **** all.

--
Aaron

Aaron
November 6th 03, 07:02 AM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Aaron wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> >> Chopper wrote:
> >> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> >> >> Chopper wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >> >>
> >> >> Why?
> >> >
> >> > Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >>
> >> So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats
> >> produce satiety, while carbs don't.
> >
> > carbs can produce satiety, and food volume can also increase
> > satiety, but thats beside hte point :)
>
> A low-fat diet permits much higher caloric intake before
> satiety.
>
> --
> -Wayne

depends on where the carbohydrate intake is comming from

Aaron
November 6th 03, 07:04 AM
"jmk" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On 11/2/2003 6:52 PM, Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> > Chopper wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
> >>
> >>>Chopper wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> >>>
> >>>Why?
> >>
> >>Becasue fat has a lot of calories per volume.
> >
> >
> > So it's volume that determines how much you eat? Fats produce
> > satiety, while carbs don't.
>
> Perhaps that is true for some people.
>
> "Diets that are high in fat or are energy dense have a weak satiating
> effect and promote a passive overconsumption of energy relative to need."
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12566138&dopt=Abstract
>
ah, the old addage, your forgetting one thing, most researchers, including
the ones in question dont realise what people are actually eating in
reality. Low fat diet to many people means sugar filled treats, not large
amounts of the more satieting, low glycemic low energy density
carbohydrates.

They need to wake up and smell the coffee


--
Aaron

come on lyle, smell the coffee, its nice and hot

Aaron
November 6th 03, 07:07 AM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > You really should.
> >
> > Summary here.
> >
> > http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/09.18/15-foodpyramid.html
> >
> > Complete info here.
> >
> > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/index.html
> >
>
> HI,
>
> 1] My original post said "1) shift your diet toward low fat food". Not
"cut
> out all fat and meat etc etc".
> 2] below is a clip from the website you mentioned - they mention "moderate
> levels of protein and fat ". They don't seem to be advocating Atkins type
> stuff.
> 3] The original post was from somebody who says he has 25% body fat and
> wants to reduce that.
>
> The guy asking the question very likely has an average American diet which
> is HEAVY in fat. He needs to reduce that. The obesity problem in the US
> doesn't result from people eating too many pretzels - it's largely from
food
> with excess fat, McDonalds type stuff.

as I said before, the american diet is around33-35% fat, which is nowhere
near 'fat heavy' Over hte past 20 years, american calorie intake has gone
up significantly and fat percentage has gone down (but fat intake hasnt
changed). Do you want to know why? because americans are eating more and
more carbohydrate dense, low fat foods. More carbohydrate content and more
calories = lowered fat percentage. Americans are getting fat, because they
are overconsuming CALORIES, not fat perse


re always fitness fads coming and going. It's not a being part of a
> fad to point out the large excess of fat in the US diet, and to corellate
it
> with the bizarre level of obesity in the country.
>
> >>
> studies show the Mediterranean diet, which has relatively high levels of
> fat, is among the best for preventing cardiovascular disease, and that
diets
> that include moderate levels of protein and fat are more satisfying and
more
> effective for weight loss.
> <<
>
>
>
>
> > Keith Hobman
> >
> > --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.
>
>

DRS
November 6th 03, 01:52 PM
Van Bagnol > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "DRS" > wrote:

[...]

>> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive.
>> Where did all that food come from?
>
> Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
> the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
> physical and less sedentary.

Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer people
to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was vastly less
efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given. Taken together it
is intuitively true that people had on average less access to food than we
do today.

> According to physical activity tables, hunting and farming activities
> are about 5-6 times the resting metabolic rate. That works out to
> perhaps 300-400 kcal/hour, so 2000 kcal BMR + 2000 kcal from exertion
> works out to 5-7 hours of farm labor a day. Seems plausible.

That's if they're working more or less solidly. In any event, the model I
see is more in keeping with the under-developed agrarian nations of today:
scrawny, over-worked, malnourished individuals who stay alive in apparent
defiance of the laws of energy consumption and expenditure.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

DRS
November 6th 03, 01:57 PM
Van Bagnol > wrote in message


[...]

> It's more relevant to look at nutritional habits at the emergence of
> H. sapiens (Cro-Magnon or thereabouts), which is only 100 kya.

I think you'll find they're pushing homo sapiens out to about 250,000 years
these days.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

jmk
November 6th 03, 05:05 PM
On 11/5/2003 11:13 PM, Van Bagnol wrote:
> In article >,
> "DRS" > wrote:
>
>
>>Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message

>>
>>>DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
>>>>>per day of the 1800's.
>>>>
>>>>Where does that figure come from?
>>>
>>>This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
>>>up a decent reference, though.
>>
>>I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive. Where
>>did all that food come from?
>
>
> Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
> the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more physical
> and less sedentary.
>
> According to physical activity tables, hunting and farming activities
> are about 5-6 times the resting metabolic rate. That works out to
> perhaps 300-400 kcal/hour, so 2000 kcal BMR + 2000 kcal from exertion
> works out to 5-7 hours of farm labor a day. Seems plausible.
>
> This may not have been the reference, but in the December 2002 issue of
> _Scientific American_ there was mention that Neandertals were estimated
> to have consumed >4000 kcal a day, extrapolated from the caloric
> requirements of current-day nonindustrial populations. (William R.
> Leonard, "Food for Thought: Dietary Change was a Driving Force in Human
> Evolution", _Scientific American_ vol 287 no 6, Dec 2002, pp 113-114.)
>
> Van

Neandertals in the 1800s? :-)

--
jmk in NC

gman99
November 6th 03, 05:36 PM
jmk > wrote:
> On 11/5/2003 11:13 PM, Van Bagnol wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "DRS" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wayne S. Hill > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>>DRS wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>[...]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>A mere tick in time, and a far cry from the >4000 calories
> >>>>>per day of the 1800's.
> >>>>
> >>>>Where does that figure come from?
> >>>
> >>>This kind of figure is commonly quoted. I'm working on digging
> >>>up a decent reference, though.
> >>
> >>I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive.
> >>Where did all that food come from?
> >
> >
> > Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
> > the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more physical
> > and less sedentary.
> >
> > According to physical activity tables, hunting and farming activities
> > are about 5-6 times the resting metabolic rate. That works out to
> > perhaps 300-400 kcal/hour, so 2000 kcal BMR + 2000 kcal from exertion
> > works out to 5-7 hours of farm labor a day. Seems plausible.
> >
> > This may not have been the reference, but in the December 2002 issue of
> > _Scientific American_ there was mention that Neandertals were estimated
> > to have consumed >4000 kcal a day, extrapolated from the caloric
> > requirements of current-day nonindustrial populations. (William R.
> > Leonard, "Food for Thought: Dietary Change was a Driving Force in Human
> > Evolution", _Scientific American_ vol 287 no 6, Dec 2002, pp 113-114.)
> >
> > Van
>
> Neandertals in the 1800s? :-)

There's plenty of them still around today...

Van Bagnol
November 7th 03, 09:26 AM
In article >,
"DRS" > wrote:

> Van Bagnol > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "DRS" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive.
> >> Where did all that food come from?
> >
> > Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
> > the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
> > physical and less sedentary.
>
> Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer people
> to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was vastly less
> efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given. Taken together it
> is intuitively true that people had on average less access to food than we
> do today.

(A) A smaller population means fewer people to feed.

(B) A largely agrarian economy means fewer _city_ people to feed, as the
division of labor is less weighted toward industry. Farming efficiency
only means that fewer farmers are needed for feeding the populace: In
1840, 68.6% of the US labor force was occupied in farming; in 1990, it
was 1.6% -- in fact, numerically fewer people are 'working the fields'
today than in 1840. So rather than missing the fact, point B is actually
emphasizing it.

And whether or not farming was less efficient, farmers' families get fed
well. :-)

As for point C, see below.

> > According to physical activity tables, hunting and farming activities
> > are about 5-6 times the resting metabolic rate. That works out to
> > perhaps 300-400 kcal/hour, so 2000 kcal BMR + 2000 kcal from exertion
> > works out to 5-7 hours of farm labor a day. Seems plausible.
>
> That's if they're working more or less solidly.

Five hours of farm labor stretched over a 10-12 hour farming day doesn't
have to be that solid. Besides, farming activity at 5x RMR is the
metabolic equivalent to walking at 4 mph or mowing the lawn.

The point was that I was looking at a plausibility of the 4000 kcal/day
figure. It seems somewhat high, but not excessively so. (By the way, the
same tables show some industrial labor activity as _more_ metabolically
intensive than farming, so cityfolk aren't all off the hook.)

> In any event, the model I see is more in keeping with the
> under-developed agrarian nations of today: scrawny, over-worked,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Then don't forget overpopulated.) ;-)

> malnourished individuals who stay alive in apparent defiance of the
> laws of energy consumption and expenditure.

Be careful; it's simplistic to confuse scrawniness with paucity of
calories. Leonard's article itself notes that a relatively scrawny
125-lb Evenki (current-day pastoral tribe in northern Russia) man
requires > 3000 kcal/day in contrast to a 160-lb American requiring
2600. Lance Armstrong is actually pretty skinny but he can burn 3000
kcal in just a morning bike ride.

In the long run, calorie intake will match energy expenditure and vice
versa. Hypothalamic appetite response _above the sedentary threshold_
(this is important) is remarkably stable. For example, a 1956 study of
Bengal mill workers showed that even with voluntary calorie intake, mean
body weight pretty much flatlined at around 114 lb whether they expended
2600 kcal or 3500 kcal or anything in between.


(C) If you think about it, it's obvious, really. If 19th century people
were less sedentary, then they burned more calories. If they burned more
calories, they must have eaten more calories to match it else they would
have wasted away into nothing.

I think your 'counterintuition' may lie in a mistaken perception of
agrarian 19th-century America (which is apropos for contrast against
fast-food 21st-century America) as being something like 20th-century
Bangladesh. I think otherwise.

Van


(There is a way for a faster metabolism to burn fewer calories, however:
a lower equilibrium body mass. Our 125-lb, 3000 kcal/day Evenki reindeer
herder's metabolism is churning 24 kcal per pound of body weight per
day. If he gained 25 pounds (maintaining the same bodyfat percentage)
but cranked out a relatively lazy 21 kcal/lb/day, he'd be burning 3150
kcalories -- 150 kcal more. Lower bodyweight is therefore, in a sense, a
natural adaptation to maximize metabolism with a minimum of calories.)

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Van Bagnol
November 7th 03, 09:29 AM
In article >,
jmk > wrote:

> On 11/5/2003 11:13 PM, Van Bagnol wrote:
>
> > This may not have been the reference, but in the December 2002 issue of
> > _Scientific American_ there was mention that Neandertals were estimated
> > to have consumed >4000 kcal a day, extrapolated from the caloric
> > requirements of current-day nonindustrial populations. (William R.
> > Leonard, "Food for Thought: Dietary Change was a Driving Force in Human
> > Evolution", _Scientific American_ vol 287 no 6, Dec 2002, pp 113-114.)
> > Van
>
> Neandertals in the 1800s? :-)

There are still some who post on Usenet. ;-)

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

kaloalex
November 7th 03, 03:28 PM
>
>>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did while
>>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>
>
> In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing with
> frisbees causes obesity.

Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out it's
frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?

kaloalex
November 7th 03, 03:42 PM
DRS wrote:
> Van Bagnol > wrote in message
>
>
>>In article >,
>> "DRS" > wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive.
>>>Where did all that food come from?
>>
>>Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
>>the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
>>physical and less sedentary.
>
>
> Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer people
> to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was vastly less
> efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given. Taken together it
> is intuitively true that people had on average less access to food than we
> do today.

That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth. Which
nicely cancels out your objection to point B.

Kalo

David Cohen
November 7th 03, 03:48 PM
"kaloalex" > wrote
> >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
while
> >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >
> > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
with
> > frisbees causes obesity.
>
> Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
it's
> frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?

You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
eating donuts causes deafness.

You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?

David
--
"However I plan to keep posting here about whatever matter I fancy,
including, as the case may be, anatomical details of your deceased
female ancestors in chronological order."---Lysis

DRS
November 7th 03, 06:20 PM
kaloalex" <""kaloalexandra\
> wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> Van Bagnol > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's
>>>> counterintuitive. Where did all that food come from?
>>>
>>> Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller,
>>> (B) the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
>>> physical and less sedentary.
>>
>> Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer
>> people to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was
>> vastly less efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given.
>> Taken together it is intuitively true that people had on average
>> less access to food than we do today.
>
> That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth.
> Which nicely cancels out your objection to point B.

No, it doesn't. With a small population and very inefficient farming
practices the excess land simply cannot be tilled. The small population is
almost entirely engaged in inefficiently tilling the land they have.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Proton Soup
November 7th 03, 07:07 PM
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 05:20:51 +1100, "DRS"
> wrote:

>kaloalex" <""kaloalexandra\
> wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:
>>> Van Bagnol > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "DRS" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's
>>>>> counterintuitive. Where did all that food come from?
>>>>
>>>> Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller,
>>>> (B) the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
>>>> physical and less sedentary.
>>>
>>> Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer
>>> people to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was
>>> vastly less efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given.
>>> Taken together it is intuitively true that people had on average
>>> less access to food than we do today.
>>
>> That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth.
>> Which nicely cancels out your objection to point B.
>
>No, it doesn't. With a small population and very inefficient farming
>practices the excess land simply cannot be tilled. The small population is
>almost entirely engaged in inefficiently tilling the land they have.

People were also shorter back then. Regardless of how many calories
they actually consumed, the maintenance diet for equivalent amounts of
exercise would be less. I'm guessing shortness would be caused by a
number of things, including diets that relied too heavily on one food
(nutritional deficiency), inconsistent caloric intake, seasonal
vitamin deficiencies, and disease. People would also burn off more
calories in the winter because keeping a home warm was more difficult,
and more work was done outdoors.

Proton Soup

Top Sirloin
November 7th 03, 07:36 PM
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:22:37 GMT, Van Bagnol > wrote:

>Van

I miss Van Der.


--
Scott Johnson
"Always with the excuses for small legs. People like you are
why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen

Van Bagnol
November 7th 03, 08:22 PM
In article >,
"DRS" > wrote:

> kaloalex" <""kaloalexandra\
> > wrote in message
>
> > DRS wrote:
> >> Van Bagnol > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "DRS" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's
> >>>> counterintuitive. Where did all that food come from?
> >>>
> >>> Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller,
> >>> (B) the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
> >>> physical and less sedentary.
> >>
> >> Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer
> >> people to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was
> >> vastly less efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given.
> >> Taken together it is intuitively true that people had on average
> >> less access to food than we do today.
> >
> > That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth.
> > Which nicely cancels out your objection to point B.
>
> No, it doesn't. With a small population and very inefficient farming
> practices the excess land simply cannot be tilled. The small population is
> almost entirely engaged in inefficiently tilling the land they have.

Only in the extreme cases of farm inefficiency in purely (90%+)
agricultural societies. Instances where the percentage of labor devoted
to farming is lower (in this case, 68% in 1840), imply that there was
enough surplus food production to feed the remaining population _not_
devoted to farming.

An article in _Scientific American_ on African family size and
population growth published some decades ago does support your point,
however. More children equaled more hands to work the field, hence it
was advantageous in the near term to pump out babies, although a
liability in the long term to overpopulate the territory.

The critical bottleneck to agricultural efficiency is energy. Sub-
Saharan Africa and Australia lacked a suitable large domesticatable
native mammal to pull the ploughs, so much of the farming had to be done
by hand. Regions with native oxen, horses, water buffalo, donkeys, and
yaks had an easier time at it.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

Dave H
November 7th 03, 09:34 PM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:22:37 GMT, Van Bagnol > wrote:
>
> >Van
>
> I miss Van Der Beek

I wouldn't have guessed you to be a Dawson's Creek fan. ;-)

dave h

Top Sirloin
November 7th 03, 10:44 PM
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:34:48 -0600, "Dave H" > wrote:

>
>"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:22:37 GMT, Van Bagnol > wrote:
>>
>> >Van
>>
>> I miss Van Der Beek
>
>I wouldn't have guessed you to be a Dawson's Creek fan. ;-)

It's ok, I'm Gay as ****!


--

Scott Johnson
"be a man ,stop looking for handouts , eat ,lift and shut your mouth"
-John Carlo

Van Bagnol
November 8th 03, 01:49 AM
In article >,
Van Bagnol > wrote:

> In article >,
> "DRS" > wrote:
>
> > Van Bagnol > wrote in message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "DRS" > wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's counterintuitive.
> > >> Where did all that food come from?
> > >
> > > Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller, (B)
> > > the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
> > > physical and less sedentary.

[...]

> > In any event, the model I see is more in keeping with the
> > under-developed agrarian nations of today: scrawny, over-worked,
> > malnourished individuals who stay alive in apparent defiance of the
> > laws of energy consumption and expenditure.

[...]

> I think your 'counterintuition' may lie in a mistaken perception of
> agrarian 19th-century America (which is apropos for contrast against
> fast-food 21st-century America) as being something like 20th-century
> Bangladesh. I think otherwise.

BTW, my apologies for being America-centric; I just realized that "DRS"
is posting from the land of Oz/NZ where the perspective is different.
Nevertheless, to look at the decline of food and exercise habits of a
western industrialized society like 2003 North America it would be more
logical to contrast it with the same region (and natural resources) at
an earlier time rather than a completely different region and
environment where there are more variables to consider.

So then, how have health and dietary habits changed for Australian
aborigenes since the 1800s? It's probably similar to changes of native
Hawaiians.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

DRS
November 8th 03, 02:00 AM
Van Bagnol > wrote in message


[...]

> BTW, my apologies for being America-centric; I just realized that
> "DRS" is posting from the land of Oz/NZ where the perspective is
> different. Nevertheless, to look at the decline of food and exercise
> habits of a western industrialized society like 2003 North America it
> would be more logical to contrast it with the same region (and
> natural resources) at an earlier time rather than a completely
> different region and environment where there are more variables to
> consider.

Looking back in the thread I missed the point that Wayne was talking about
America in the 1800s, which had a robust agrarian base that could possibly
have supplied a demand of 4,000 calories fer person per day. I still
believe it wouldn't hold true for most peoples in most times in history.

> So then, how have health and dietary habits changed for Australian
> aborigenes since the 1800s? It's probably similar to changes of native
> Hawaiians.

It's probably beyond argument that the general health of Aborigines (note
the upper case "A" for the aboriginal peoples of Australia) is worse than it
was pre-European settlement. Their average life expectancy is some twenty
years or more below that of the rest of the country. Their dietary habits
would also undoubtedly have changed but to what extent I'm not sure, since
you're talking about diverse groups of people from those still on tribal
lands a way out the back of Burke to those now urbanised. One thing of
note, though, is a documentary I saw a few years back which argued that
around the time of European settlement (1788+) the Aborigines ate better and
were healthier than most Western Europeans (ie., the Aborigines never
bothered to build slums, neither did they invent gin).

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Chopper
November 8th 03, 02:19 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "kaloalex" > wrote
> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> while
> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > >
> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> with
> > > frisbees causes obesity.
> >
> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> it's
> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
>
> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> eating donuts causes deafness.
>
> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?

For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.


> David
> --
> "However I plan to keep posting here about whatever matter I fancy,
> including, as the case may be, anatomical details of your deceased
> female ancestors in chronological order."---Lysis
>
>

Chupacabra
November 8th 03, 02:33 AM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:19:07 GMT, "Chopper"
> wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "kaloalex" > wrote
>> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
>> while
>> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>> > >
>> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
>> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
>> with
>> > > frisbees causes obesity.
>> >
>> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
>> it's
>> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
>>
>> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
>> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
>> eating donuts causes deafness.
>>
>> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
>> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
>> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
>
>For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
>eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.

Eating a lot of broccoli can lead to being fat, dumb****.

>
>
>> David
>> --
>> "However I plan to keep posting here about whatever matter I fancy,
>> including, as the case may be, anatomical details of your deceased
>> female ancestors in chronological order."---Lysis
>>
>>
>

David Cohen
November 8th 03, 03:26 AM
"Chupacabra" > wrote
> "Chopper" > wrote:
> >"David Cohen" > wrote
> >> "kaloalex" >
wrote
> >> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans
did
> >> while
> >> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did
while
> >> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore,
playing
> >> with
> >> > > frisbees causes obesity.
> >> >
> >> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find
out
> >> it's
> >> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> >>
> >> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have
shown
> >> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> >> eating donuts causes deafness.
> >>
> >> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference
between
> >> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> >> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> >
> >For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody
stating that
> >eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little
world.
>
> Eating a lot of broccoli can lead to being fat, dumb****.

I'll email you a nice jpeg of a brick wall. You'll find it more
productive talking to it than to Chopper.

David
--
"This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112

kaloalex
November 8th 03, 03:30 AM
Chopper wrote:
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>>"kaloalex" > wrote
>>
>>>>>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
>>>>
>>while
>>
>>>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>>>>
>>>>In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
>>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
>>>
>>with
>>
>>>>frisbees causes obesity.
>>>
>>>Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
>>
>>it's
>>
>>>frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
>>
>>You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
>>that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
>>eating donuts causes deafness.
>>
>>You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
>>causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
>>index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
>
>
> For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
> eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
>
I knew it! He's a fadist! Well, I'll be... And here I thought
everyone was being too rough on him when he was new. Now I come to find
out he's been a fadist all along. What a sneaky subversive Zionistic
fadist.

Sorry. I don't usually sink to the level of spelling flames, and I just
felt the impulse to indulge a little.

But seriously, Chopper (if that _is_ your real name), let's look back at
your original post in this thread.

<insert>
1) shift your diet toward low fat food
2) cut back on overall calories
3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
</insert>

Frankly, numbers two and three were excellent points and number one was
simply deeply cherished conjecture on your part. If the OP lowers his
caloric intake and raises his active (and passive) metabolic
expenditures, he will lose bodyfat. Case closed.

And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose built,
slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.

Number one flows not from any objective standard of health or weight
reduction, but from your assumption that the origianl poster indulges in
eating the over-saturated deep-fried crap so prevalent in America and
our many consumerist zombie follower nations across the globe as well as
the fascinating but ultimately doomed socialist/isolationist experiment
just slightly north of us (oops, did I type that out loud?).

When looked at in this light, surely you can see where your argument
parted ways with terra firma in search of a defensible position for your
own personal theories?

No?

Well, I can.

Kalo

kaloalex
November 8th 03, 03:38 AM
DRS wrote:
> kaloalex" <""kaloalexandra\
> > wrote in message
>
>
>>DRS wrote:
>>
>>>Van Bagnol > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"DRS" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm most curious about it. At the very least it's
>>>>>counterintuitive. Where did all that food come from?
>>>>
>>>>Why would it be counterintuitive? (A) the population was smaller,
>>>>(B) the economy was still highly agrarian, (C) labor was much more
>>>>physical and less sedentary.
>>>
>>>Point A is neither here nor there. Fewer people simply means fewer
>>>people to work the fields. Point B misses the fact that farming was
>>>vastly less efficient than it is today. Point C is the only given.
>>>Taken together it is intuitively true that people had on average
>>>less access to food than we do today.
>>
>>That's not all point A means. It also means more acres per mouth.
>>Which nicely cancels out your objection to point B.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. With a small population and very inefficient farming
> practices the excess land simply cannot be tilled. The small population is
> almost entirely engaged in inefficiently tilling the land they have.
>

Ok. But the extra acres can be hunted. And native wildlife populations
will remain far greater than anything we civilized folk are used to.
Which equates to more available protein per capita just roaming around
looking to fill a need.

Kalo

Bob Garrison
November 8th 03, 03:45 AM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "kaloalex" > wrote
> > > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> > while
> > > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > > >
> > > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> > with
> > > > frisbees causes obesity.
> > >
> > > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> > it's
> > > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> >
> > You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> > that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> > eating donuts causes deafness.
> >
> > You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> > causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> > index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
>
> For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
> eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
>

Listen up moron.

Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more calories
than one burns ***regardless of the source of the calories*** DOES cause a
person to be fat.

David Cohen
November 8th 03, 03:49 AM
"kaloalex" > wrote
> And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
built,
> slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
> object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.

The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly domed (with
comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the dogs
to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what cute
puppies".

David
www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/dogs.html

Melstar
November 8th 03, 06:34 AM
Hi,

I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to this
conversation.

Most people believe that Cardio is the way to burn fat, however the bigger
the muscle the more fat & energy required.
Therefore weight training is best for fat loss. Cardio work is best for
increasing your fitness levels.

Also some gyms still use the pinch test as a measure of body fat. This
method is very inaccurate. The results can depend on who is performing the
test, for women what time of the month it is in their cycle etc.

I recently tested a lady in her 40's. She works out three to four times a
week, has a great diet and a great body. The test results revealed she was
obese!!!!

Thanks
Melstar




"Brian Link" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:56:02 -0500, "JP" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Our bodies are designed to store fat as a matter of survival. Therefore
the
> >key to successful weight loss is to trigger the burning rather than the
> >storage of fat cells. Some dieters consider dairy products to be
fattening,
> >but research suggests the opposite is true. Milk calcium is a fat burner.
> >
> >Look at that American Dietetic Association's Article:
> >http://webdietitians.org/Public/NutritionInformation/index_17163.cfm
> >
> >I take a product called Prycena. It provides a high concentration of
dairy
> >calcium coupled with a unique hydrolyzed peptide assists in burning the
fat.
> >It helps me.
> >
> >Maybe it can be good for you too. You can read more here:
> >http://www.distribuweb.com/prycena/
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >J.Pare, Montreal, Canada
> >
> >
> Crap -- where do I post to not be a top-poster? =P
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that in any other context I'd
> regard that reply as spam. But good on the poster for at least
> offering it in context. Unless he'd mentioned kettlebells, in which
> case he'd be roundly trounced here..
>
> Fat burning will do little good if your caloric intake exceeds your
> caloric expenditure. That's the first step.
>
> If you're dancing right around your basic metabolic requirements but
> don't want to cut more calories, perhaps the Milk Diet may be useful.
> But frankly it's easier, more useful to general health and less
> expensive to just add some enjoyable exercise or chop off a couple
> desserts. Simple. Maybe not easy.. but simple.
>
> I didn't change my diet hardly at all, but went from zero exercise to
> 3+ sessions of resistance training a week, and dropped from around 22%
> BF to the low teens. YMMV
>
> BLink
> Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota
>
> >
> >
> >"bj" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> >> And remember that this is not a temporary project.
> >>
> >> It should be a lifestyle change of moderate eating and doing some
exercise
> >> on a regular basis. For the rest of your life.
> >>
> >> The details will change over time (with the seasons, your mood,
physical
> >> conditions, the years...) but the framework stays the same.
> >> Best wishes.
> >> bj
> >>
> >> "B a r r y B u r k e J r ." >
> >wrote
> >> in message ...
> >> > On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?
> >> >
> >> > Eat less, exercise more.
> >> >
> >> > Choosing exercise that you enjoy will make it easy for you to do,
> >> > greatly increasing the chance of success.
> >> >
> >> > Barry
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Bob Garrison
November 8th 03, 12:57 PM
"Melstar" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to this
> conversation.
>

Quit top-posting.

David
November 8th 03, 01:02 PM
"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
this
> > conversation.
> >
>
> Quit top-posting.
>
if you are new, we don't like you so **** off,

John HUDSON
November 8th 03, 01:08 PM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 13:02:06 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Melstar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
>this
>> > conversation.
>> >
>>
>> Quit top-posting.
>>
>if you are new, we don't like you so **** off,

That's funny!

He's not "new" - which makes it even funnier! ;o)

David
November 8th 03, 01:21 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 13:02:06 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
> >this
> >> > conversation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Quit top-posting.
> >>
> >if you are new, we don't like you so **** off,
>
> That's funny!
>
> He's not "new" - which makes it even funnier! ;o)
>
I don;t like to discriminate - i firmly believe if you insult 10 people at
least one of them deserves it

Chopper
November 8th 03, 03:59 PM
"Chupacabra" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:19:07 GMT, "Chopper"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >>
> >> "kaloalex" > wrote
> >> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> >> while
> >> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >> > >
> >> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> >> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> >> with
> >> > > frisbees causes obesity.
> >> >
> >> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> >> it's
> >> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> >>
> >> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> >> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> >> eating donuts causes deafness.
> >>
> >> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> >> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> >> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> >
> >For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
that
> >eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
>
> Eating a lot of broccoli can lead to being fat, dumb****.

Only a real ****head would come up with that. Record breaking levels of
obesity, a fat packed US diet, little exercise, and ****head here blames
broccoli.

Chopper
November 8th 03, 04:10 PM
"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "kaloalex" > wrote
> > > > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> > > while
> > > > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > > > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> > > with
> > > > > frisbees causes obesity.
> > > >
> > > > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> > > it's
> > > > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> > >
> > > You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> > > that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> > > eating donuts causes deafness.
> > >
> > > You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> > > causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> > > index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> >
> > For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
that
> > eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
> >
>
> Listen up moron.
>
> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
calories
> than one burns ***regardless of the source of the calories*** DOES cause
a
> person to be fat.

Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked up by brain
deads like yourself but that doesn't make it real.

Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts etc in
the average American's diet will almost always get favorable results.

Wayne S. Hill
November 8th 03, 04:18 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "Bob Garrison" > wrote...
>>
>> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat.
>> Eating more calories than one burns ***regardless of the
>> source of the calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.
>
> Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked
> up by brain deads like yourself but that doesn't make it
> real.

Are you saying that this is somehow incorrect? References?

> Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips
> and donuts etc in the average American's diet will almost
> always get favorable results.

Show me where the following statement is wrong:

Regular workouts and reducing caloric intake will almost always
get favorable results.

--
-Wayne

Bob Garrison
November 8th 03, 04:54 PM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chupacabra" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:19:07 GMT, "Chopper"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >>
> > >> "kaloalex" > wrote
> > >> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> > >> while
> > >> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > >> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> > >> with
> > >> > > frisbees causes obesity.
> > >> >
> > >> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> > >> it's
> > >> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> > >>
> > >> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> > >> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> > >> eating donuts causes deafness.
> > >>
> > >> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> > >> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> > >> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> > >
> > >For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
> that
> > >eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
> >
> > Eating a lot of broccoli can lead to being fat, dumb****.
>
> Only a real ****head would come up with that. Record breaking levels of
> obesity, a fat packed US diet, little exercise, and ****head here blames
> broccoli.


If you think he's blaming broccoli you really are a ****ing moron!

Bob Garrison
November 8th 03, 04:57 PM
"Chopper" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chopper" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "kaloalex" > wrote
> > > > > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> > > > while
> > > > > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> > > > > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore,
playing
> > > > with
> > > > > > frisbees causes obesity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find
out
> > > > it's
> > > > > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> > > >
> > > > You're the last to hear about these things because studies have
shown
> > > > that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> > > > eating donuts causes deafness.
> > > >
> > > > You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> > > > causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> > > > index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> > >
> > > For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
> that
> > > eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
> > >
> >
> > Listen up moron.
> >
> > Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
> calories
> > than one burns ***regardless of the source of the calories*** DOES
cause
> a
> > person to be fat.
>
> Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked up by brain
> deads like yourself but that doesn't make it real.
>
> Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts etc
in
> the average American's diet will almost always get favorable results.

Uh huh, so if I eat *ONLY* hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts *BUT* I
eat fewer calories than I burn I'll still get fat. NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Chopper
November 8th 03, 05:04 PM
"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chopper" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Chupacabra" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:19:07 GMT, "Chopper"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >>
> > > >> "kaloalex" > wrote
> > > >> > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> > > >> while
> > > >> > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did
while
> > > >> > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore,
playing
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > frisbees causes obesity.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find
out
> > > >> it's
> > > >> > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> > > >>
> > > >> You're the last to hear about these things because studies have
shown
> > > >> that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> > > >> eating donuts causes deafness.
> > > >>
> > > >> You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> > > >> causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> > > >> index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> > > >
> > > >For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
> > that
> > > >eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
> > >
> > > Eating a lot of broccoli can lead to being fat, dumb****.
> >
> > Only a real ****head would come up with that. Record breaking levels of
> > obesity, a fat packed US diet, little exercise, and ****head here blames
> > broccoli.
>
>
> If you think he's blaming broccoli you really are a ****ing moron!

You're too stupid to "get" what I was saying. **** off you brain dead.

Chopper
November 8th 03, 05:16 PM
> Uh huh, so if I eat *ONLY* hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts *BUT*
I
> eat fewer calories than I burn I'll still get fat. NOT!!!!!!!!!!
>

Hahahah.
Yeah that "statement", is a good indicator of how much credibility you
have.
For people who do have some intelligence and interest in the subject,
following is a good short article that describes what I think is an obvious
current dietary problem.


Nov. 2, 2003
Jerusalem Post Online Eddtion
Young, fat, lazy, and diabetic
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH


Type 2 diabetes used to be a 'lifestyle' disease of the middle-aged and
elderly, but now it is increasingly appearing in young people, even
children.

If you thought AIDS is the world's worst pandemic, think again. Although no
virus is behind it, diabetes - especially the kind connected to lack of
exercise, obesity and a junk-food diet - affects hundreds of millions of
people around the world, and will become much more common in the coming
decades.

While an increase in Type 2 diabetes is to be expected in an ageing
population, it is increasingly appearing in young adults, teenagers and even
children, threatening to overburden the public health systems that will have
to finance treatment and rehabilitation. Among the complications suffered by
Type 2 diabetics whose blood sugar/insulin ratio is not under control are
heart disease, stroke, hypertension, blindness, kidney disease, diabetic
neuropathy, vascular problems and limb amputation.

Type 2 diabetes reportedly affects more than 15 million Americans and
400,000 Israelis, and many more may be undiagnosed. That Type 2 diabetes is
afflicting increasingly younger people was a major topic at the
International Symposium on Diabetology held at the Jerusalem Renaissance
Hotel to mark the 50th anniversary of the Israel Diabetes Association
(www.sukeret.co.il). It has also been a major focus of research by experts
around the world. The two-day event, chaired by IDA head Prof. Itamar Raz of
Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, was attended by more than a
dozen foreign diabetes experts who paid their own way to lecture and voice
support for Israel.

Dr. Francis Kaufman, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children's Hospital in
Los Angeles and immediate past president of the American Diabetes
Association, told the Jerusalem symposium that a quarter of new diabetes
patients in her pediatric wards have Type 2 diabetes; only a decade or so
ago, the vast majority had Type 1 - an autoimmune disease with a genetic
background in which the body's immune system destroys the insulin-producing
beta cells in the pancreas, meaning that insulin injections are needed
several times a day.

According to the US Surgeon General, more than 16% of youngsters aged six to
18 are overweight - double the figure of two decades ago. The steady diet of
high-fat, high-sugar food and long hours in front of the TV and computer are
responsible for the sharp rise in Type 2 diabetes among young Americans;
Kaufman had no doubt that this growing phenomenon is relevant to the rest of
the Western world, including Israel.

Many US schools have trimmed or dropped physical education classes because
of a decline in the academic level. School systems are now investing
increasing amounts of time and money in academic subjects so pupils can pass
statewide tests, she explained. Thus children get away from their desks
infrequently, if at all, become inactive and gain weight.

"But studies have shown that kids who pass physical fitness tests do as well
on academic tests as those who don't, so keeping physical education in the
curriculum doesn't lower academic standards," she insisted. The US National
Institutes of Health has funded a long-term study on the prevention of Type
2 diabetes in teenagers, said Kaufman, who is involved in the five-year
prospective study of 750 youngsters around the US.

With Israel lagging considerably behind the US in awareness of this problem,
and most of the Western world hardly better off, the US pediatric diabetes
expert urged that a global effort be made to change social norms.

"This means changing how people live their lives. It will need a
comprehensive effort by government, family, the health system, schools, the
food industry, non-governmental organizations and the media."

Food companies such as McDonalds and Kraft, which have been sued - but the
cases were dropped in court - by obese consumers who blamed them for their
illnesses are changing their practices. There are efforts to reduce portion
size, improve labelling information and change the meals that children are
getting at school.

"The explosion of Type 2 diabetes cases is important for all of us... A
massive effort has to start now. Youngsters will have to get less soft
drinks, fruit juice, white flour and saturated fat and more water, fiber,
fruits and vegetables," she concluded.

OVER THE past two decades, all age groups in the US - not just children and
young adults - boosted their calorie intake by eating foods such as soft
drinks and pizza, a trend responsible for the growing obesity epidemic,
according to researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The study also found that Americans of all ages are eating more restaurant
food - including fast food - than a generation ago. Many Israeli kids whose
stay-at-home mothers used to cook for them are now doing so as well, as
women work outside the home and have less time for domestic chores.

The study, which appeared in Obesity Research, showed that rapidly changing
dietary patterns are important contributors to the growing epidemic of
obesity and diabetes in the US - and the trends are clear in Israel as well.
The US researchers urge children and teenagers to eat more fruits and
vegetables and lower-calorie foods that are high in vitamins and minerals,
as well as to drink more water, so that they get filled up while taking in
fewer calories.

A new Pennsylvania State University survey of a group of school food service
personnel in that state revealed that the respondents perceived childhood
obesity as a national problem - but not in their own school. Nutritionist
Dr. Claudia Probart, who headed the study, said that initially, the
respondents did not see that school meals play a role in childhood obesity.
But after they participated in a Penn State project on nutrition education,
they recognized their role and the school's ability to help deal with the
problem. As a result, the state's education authorities developed programs
that trained school food service managers, who in turn taught 4,000 food
staffers in the 501 school districts throughout Pennsylvania. This and a
master instructor-training program on childhood obesity are beginning to
have an impact.

Unfortunately, only a minority of Israeli school pupils receive meals in
school, despite growing reports of child malnutrition due to poverty. Since
the poor are known to eat cheap, fatty, sweet and highly processed food that
can lead to obesity and diabetes, school lunch programs like those in
Pennsylvania could have a doubly beneficial effect.

US researchers recently managed to explain what healthy adolescents and
patients with Type 2 diabetes have in common. Scientists at the University
of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of South Carolina found that
over the first few stages of puberty, cells in children's bodies respond
less and less to insulin, the natural hormone that - among other things -
helps cells convert sugar into energy. Writing in the November issue of the
journal Diabetes, they noted that puberty is a metabolically critical time.

"In a way, teenagers' metabolism becomes rebellious, too."

Results of the study, which is the first to track sensitivity and response
to insulin from childhood through young adulthood, carry implications for
preventing Type 2 diabetes during adolescence through steps such as diet and
exercise.

Normally, after a meal, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose in
the blood. That signals the pancreas to secrete insulin, because insulin
helps the body's cells pick up the glucose and convert it to energy. But
when cells become resistant or less sensitive to insulin, as they do in Type
2 diabetes, they cannot absorb glucose as well as they should and the sugar
remains in the blood.

In healthy teens, insulin resistance disappears after puberty ends. Yet
among people with Type 2 diabetes, cells can ignore insulin more and more
until they stop responding to it altogether. The researchers found no link
between insulin resistance and the release of sex hormones such as
testosterone during puberty - nor were gender, ethnicity or body fat
implicated as causes for insulin resistance. As a result, they concluded
that something about the changes of puberty - not simply getting older -
contributes to lowered sensitivity to insulin. Teenagers who do not recover
their insulin sensitivity by adulthood may end up with Type 2 diabetes. The
fact that children today tend to enter puberty at younger ages than their
parents did - likely linked to high body fat during childhood - may play a
role in not recovering from teenage insulin resistance at the end of
puberty.

MEANWHILE, a furry Israeli rodent is providing diabetes researchers with
more understanding of diabetes. Prof. Paul Zimmet of the Melbourne Diabetes
Institute in Australia told the Jerusalem symposium that certain genes are
suspected of being involved in a proclivity for Type 2 diabetes. It is
Psammomys obesis, a sand rat species that lives in the Negev, that has sugar
and insulin metabolism very similar to that of humans. Thus continuing study
of the rodent is sure to be helpful in the worldwide war against diabetes in
which Israeli researchers, Zimmet said, are serving major roles.

gps
November 8th 03, 05:35 PM
kaloalex wrote:
>
> Chopper wrote:
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> >
> >>"kaloalex" > wrote
> >>
> >>>>>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
> >>>>
> >>while
> >>
> >>>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
> >>>>
> >>>>In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
> >>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
> >>>
> >>with
> >>
> >>>>frisbees causes obesity.
> >>>
> >>>Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
> >>
> >>it's
> >>
> >>>frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
> >>
> >>You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
> >>that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
> >>eating donuts causes deafness.
> >>
> >>You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
> >>causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
> >>index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
> >
> >
> > For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
> > eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
> >
> I knew it! He's a fadist! Well, I'll be... And here I thought
> everyone was being too rough on him when he was new. Now I come to find
> out he's been a fadist all along. What a sneaky subversive Zionistic
> fadist.
>
> Sorry. I don't usually sink to the level of spelling flames, and I just
> felt the impulse to indulge a little.
>
> But seriously, Chopper (if that _is_ your real name), let's look back at
> your original post in this thread.
>
> <insert>
> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> 2) cut back on overall calories
> 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
> etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
> </insert>
>
> Frankly, numbers two and three were excellent points and number one was
> simply deeply cherished conjecture on your part. If the OP lowers his
> caloric intake and raises his active (and passive) metabolic
> expenditures, he will lose bodyfat. Case closed.
>
> And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose built,
> slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
> object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.

So do you ever get down to SD and play Morley? I'm going out on Tuesday
for a round or two.
ps

gps
November 8th 03, 05:36 PM
David Cohen wrote:
>
> "kaloalex" > wrote
> > And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
> built,
> > slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
> > object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> > http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
>
> The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly domed (with
> comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the dogs
> to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what cute
> puppies".
>
> David
> www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/dogs.html

Dude, disc golf rocks.
ps

Wayne S. Hill
November 8th 03, 05:48 PM
Chopper wrote:

>> Uh huh, so if I eat *ONLY* hamburgers, fat ridden chips
>> and donuts *BUT* I eat fewer calories than I burn I'll
>> still get fat. NOT!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Hahahah.
> Yeah that "statement", is a good indicator of how much
> credibility you have.

Which is to say, much more credibility than you have.

> For people who do have some intelligence and interest in the
> subject, following is a good short article that describes
> what I think is an obvious current dietary problem.

You read that article and concluded it was the fat that was
causing the problem?

--
-Wayne

Chopper
November 8th 03, 06:07 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper wrote:
>
> >> Uh huh, so if I eat *ONLY* hamburgers, fat ridden chips
> >> and donuts *BUT* I eat fewer calories than I burn I'll
> >> still get fat. NOT!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Hahahah.
> > Yeah that "statement", is a good indicator of how much
> > credibility you have.
>
> Which is to say, much more credibility than you have.
>
> > For people who do have some intelligence and interest in the
> > subject, following is a good short article that describes
> > what I think is an obvious current dietary problem.
>
> You read that article and concluded it was the fat that was
> causing the problem?

No stupid. As I've been saying all along, lack of exercise, and bad diet
(including too much fat) is the problem. This thread started out with a
request for info from someone wanting to reduce his body fat level. It's
very likely he has a standard US diet like that addressed in the article.
His problem obviously isn't that he is eating too little.
In my initial reply (below), I didn't try to be exhaustive. My point 1)
was along the lines of reduce fast / junk food.
The straw man argument of pretending I was saying that the overall level
of calories doesn't matter is just too dumb to bother with.

I replied to the original post with:
1) shift your diet toward low fat food
2) cut back on overall calories
3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.

David Cohen
November 8th 03, 06:13 PM
"gps" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
> > "kaloalex" >
wrote
> > > And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
> > built,
> > > slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic
throwing
> > > object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> > > http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
> >
> > The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly domed
(with
> > comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the
dogs
> > to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what cute
> > puppies".
> >
> > David
> > www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/dogs.html
>
> Dude, disc golf rocks.

I've been tempted to "accidentally" turn the dogs loose at a disc golf
tournament. Oops, sorry, go ahead, get your discs, they won't bite.

David

Keith Hobman
November 8th 03, 06:25 PM
In article t>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

[snip]
>
> I replied to the original post with:
> 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> 2) cut back on overall calories
> 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
> etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.

This is where I disagree with Chopper.

I would say,

1. Improve eating habits - see the Harvard diet site. Note that in this
site fats aren't the enemy - saturated fat is. So fast food is eaten
rarely, but fats from a variety of vegetable sources can be good.

2. Cut back on overall calories - check. Agree.

3. Exercise more. However, doing exercise which elevates the metabolism
and keeps it elevated is just as good as exercise that use calories. So I
would say find an activity or exercise routine you enjoy and can live with
and incorporate it into your life. In my case 5 hour hikes in the
mountains are out. I don't have the time. I don't enjoy it. We don't have
mountains in the Canadian prairie.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Wayne S. Hill
November 8th 03, 06:35 PM
Chopper wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" wrote...
>> Chopper wrote:
>>
>> > For people who do have some intelligence and interest in
>> > the subject, following is a good short article that
>> > describes what I think is an obvious current dietary
>> > problem.
>>
>> You read that article and concluded it was the fat that was
>> causing the problem?
>
> No stupid. As I've been saying all along, lack of exercise,
> and bad diet (including too much fat) is the problem.

But it isn't the level of fat, it's the calories and, for Type
2 diabetics, the percentage of calories coming from
carbohydrates. If anything, a Type 2 diabetic would be better
off maintaining the same fat intake and reducing carbohydrate
intake.

> This thread started out with a request for info from someone
> wanting to reduce his body fat level. It's very likely he
> has a standard US diet like that addressed in the article.
> His problem obviously isn't that he is eating too little.
> In my initial reply (below), I didn't try to be
> exhaustive. My point 1) was along the lines of reduce fast /
> junk food.

But that's not relevant to losing weight, or Type 2 diabetes.

> The straw man argument of pretending I was saying that
> the overall level of calories doesn't matter is just too
> dumb to bother with.

You said to reduce fat first. That's definitely not the first
thing many people need to do. If anything, ditching sweets
should be the first.

--
-Wayne

Lucas Buck
November 8th 03, 07:50 PM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:13:01 GMT, "David Cohen" > wrote:

>
>"gps" > wrote
>> David Cohen wrote:
>> > "kaloalex" >
>wrote
>> > > And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
>> > built,
>> > > slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic
>throwing
>> > > object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
>> > > http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
>> >
>> > The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly domed
>(with
>> > comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the
>dogs
>> > to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what cute
>> > puppies".
>> >
>> > David
>> > www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/dogs.html
>>
>> Dude, disc golf rocks.
>
>I've been tempted to "accidentally" turn the dogs loose at a disc golf
>tournament. Oops, sorry, go ahead, get your discs, they won't bite.
>
>David


Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more interesting.

DRS
November 8th 03, 08:03 PM
Chopper > wrote in message

> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

>> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
>> calories than one burns ***regardless of the source of the
>> calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.
>
> Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked up by
> brain deads like yourself but that doesn't make it real.

Bob is absolutely correct. You could live on McDonalds without getting fat
as long as your calorific expenditure exceeded your calorific intake,
despite the fact that a large Big Mac Meal contains 52.2g of fat per serve
(including 22.4g saturated fats)[1].

> Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts
> etc in the average American's diet will almost always get favorable
> results.

No-one is disputing that. You're confusing two different arguments.

[1] Large Big Mac Meal:

Big Mac

Energy: 2130 kj/509 kCal
Protein: 26.0g
Fat (total): 25.7g
-Saturated Fat: 10.8g
Carb (total): 42.5g
-Sugars: 9.2g

French Fries Large

Energy: 1972 kj/471 kCal
Protein: 5.5.0g
Fat (total): 24.7g
-Saturated Fat: 11.6g
Carb (total): 56.1g
-Sugars: 0g

Coca-Cola Large

Energy: 902 kj/215 kCal
Protein: 0.0g
Fat (total): 0g
-Saturated Fat: 0g
Carb (total): 53.6g
-Sugars: 53.1g

Totals:

Energy: 5004 kj/1195 kCal
Protein: 31.5g
Fat (total): 52.2g
-Saturated Fat: 22.4g
Carb (total): 1522g
-Sugars: 62.3g

Figures from McDonalds (Aus).

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Chopper
November 8th 03, 09:50 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Chopper" > wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I replied to the original post with:
> > 1) shift your diet toward low fat food
> > 2) cut back on overall calories
> > 3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good
(running
> > etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
> > hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>
> This is where I disagree with Chopper.
>
> I would say,
>
> 1. Improve eating habits - see the Harvard diet site. Note that in this
> site fats aren't the enemy - saturated fat is. So fast food is eaten
> rarely, but fats from a variety of vegetable sources can be good.

I've seen the site and read many articles dealing with that genral subject.
There's nothing brand new about distinguishing between fat types and their
effects on clogged arteries and heart disease. There's even a margarine
that's become popular (Smart something) based on "good" fats. One emphasis
lately is that fat satiates hunger - this I agree with, but from personal
experience it only takes minor amounts.

I'm sceptical about all these "stduies" for several reasons. First, the
perceived wisdom is always changing and with each change there are a bunch
of true believers yakking their mantras abouit it. Back in the '60s and '70s
it was carbohydrates were fattening, meat was good etc etc. Then it changed
to good carbohydrates are ok, refined stuff is bad, meat protein poisons
you, all fat is bad etc. Then it went to distinguishing between fats and
avoiding animal fats, and the value of eating only veggies and so on.

Homo sapiens in the past and present lived/live on a wide span of diets,
and probably that's one reason the species is so succesful. The one constant
to me is that nowadays the average person gets much less exercise than in
previous generations, but it's easy to overwhelm the calories burned in
exercise with those in soft drinks and high calorie food..

Another obvious point is the bizarre level of obesity, and the
proliferation of advertising for and availibilty of junk food high in fat
and sugar. I think that connection is real and is having an effect. Living
an average Amercian life, it's dificult not to eat too many calories,
probably of the wrong stuff. Homo sapien evolved with a lot of meat, but it
had a few percent fat in it, not 20 or 30 percent. They ate high fat bone
marrow at least sometimes, but unless they were just scanvenging carnivore
kills and not felling game themselves, the lean muscle meat versus fat
marrow calorie ratio usually should have been high. Early man was a good
hunter - many animal species went extinct coincident with in-migration of
HS's into new regions.

As to studies in general, meat producers have been very unhappy with the
recent years perceived wisdom of "meat bad, veggies good". They did a lot of
advertising and probably some "research" funding of their own. And it's
having an effect. The news a few days ago mentioned sales and profits of
food carbo producers as falling. Who knows what's real and what isn't? In
the '60s, there was a credible study that found about 50 pct of man made
chemicals to be carcinogenic and it casued a major stir. It took them 20
years to do the same study on naturally occuring chemicals, and they found
about 50 pct of those were also carcinogenic.

The idea is not to eliminate fat and carbos from the diet. In the
context of the foods availble in the US, it's to try to keep it down to a
reasonble level. And that's not easy.

My original statement was: "shift your diet toward low fat food". It
should have been "shift your diet toward low fat and low sugar food". My
assumption is that in the US, there are going to be a lot of "standard"
meals you can't avoid, and in making the ones you can control low fat & low
suger you're at least shifting things in the right direction.


>
> 2. Cut back on overall calories - check. Agree.
>
> 3. Exercise more. However, doing exercise which elevates the metabolism
> and keeps it elevated is just as good as exercise that use calories. So I
> would say find an activity or exercise routine you enjoy and can live with
> and incorporate it into your life. In my case 5 hour hikes in the
> mountains are out. I don't have the time. I don't enjoy it. We don't have
> mountains in the Canadian prairie.

I've done CV and weights 6 times a week for a couple decades. Still, I can
easily eat my way to being overweight. My main way of deterring that is to
eat rice to fill up on, along with a relatively small regular meal. I don't
doubt that exercise raises the metabolism and that helps burn calories, but
I would like to know to what extent it does this. Do you have any references
to research on this? Let me know.

Chopper



>
> --
> Keith Hobman
>
> --- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Chopper
November 8th 03, 10:00 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> Chopper > wrote in message
>
> > "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> [...]
>
> >> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
> >> calories than one burns ***regardless of the source of the
> >> calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.
> >
> > Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked up by
> > brain deads like yourself but that doesn't make it real.
>
> Bob is absolutely correct. You could live on McDonalds without getting
fat
> as long as your calorific expenditure exceeded your calorific intake,

I know that. I've known that a long time. I never said the calories eaten
versus burned din't matter - he SAID I said that. But it's a theoretical
argument.

In the real world, high calory foods like chainstore hamburgers etc., DO
often lead to over consumption of total calories because the meat and french
fries etc is dense in calories, and for a given volume of food consumed, the
person takes in a lot of excess calories.

C








> despite the fact that a large Big Mac Meal contains 52.2g of fat per serve
> (including 22.4g saturated fats)[1].
>
> > Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts
> > etc in the average American's diet will almost always get favorable
> > results.
>
> No-one is disputing that. You're confusing two different arguments.
>
> [1] Large Big Mac Meal:
>
> Big Mac
>
> Energy: 2130 kj/509 kCal
> Protein: 26.0g
> Fat (total): 25.7g
> -Saturated Fat: 10.8g
> Carb (total): 42.5g
> -Sugars: 9.2g
>
> French Fries Large
>
> Energy: 1972 kj/471 kCal
> Protein: 5.5.0g
> Fat (total): 24.7g
> -Saturated Fat: 11.6g
> Carb (total): 56.1g
> -Sugars: 0g
>
> Coca-Cola Large
>
> Energy: 902 kj/215 kCal
> Protein: 0.0g
> Fat (total): 0g
> -Saturated Fat: 0g
> Carb (total): 53.6g
> -Sugars: 53.1g
>
> Totals:
>
> Energy: 5004 kj/1195 kCal
> Protein: 31.5g
> Fat (total): 52.2g
> -Saturated Fat: 22.4g
> Carb (total): 1522g
> -Sugars: 62.3g
>
> Figures from McDonalds (Aus).
>
> --
>
> "Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
> ****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
> Andreas Prilop
>
>

Keith Hobman
November 8th 03, 10:11 PM
In article et>,
"Chopper" > wrote:

[snip]
>
> I've done CV and weights 6 times a week for a couple decades. Still, I can
> easily eat my way to being overweight. My main way of deterring that is to
> eat rice to fill up on, along with a relatively small regular meal. I don't
> doubt that exercise raises the metabolism and that helps burn calories, but
> I would like to know to what extent it does this. Do you have any references
> to research on this? Let me know.

I'm not sure rice is a great answer for that - highly glycemic. There have
been studies done on the effect of weightlifting, but I'll have to do some
digging. Are you disputing that muscle burns calories?

The bottom line is I agree most people can easily eat there way to being
overfat (composition being more important than weight). However, the
amount of calories burnt during the actual exercise isn't as important as
the effect on metabolism.

--
Keith Hobman

--- email address above is a non-monitored spam sink.

Art S
November 8th 03, 11:37 PM
"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don;t like to discriminate - i firmly believe if you insult 10 people at
> least one of them deserves it
>

That sounds like rationalization to me.

But don't worry - eventually you will learn enough so that you can aim
better. And then you won't need to rationalize about it any more.

Wadda ya think? 20 - 30 years otta do it?

Art

kaloalex
November 9th 03, 12:04 AM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:13:01 GMT, "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
>
>>"gps" > wrote
>>
>>>David Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>>"kaloalex" >
>>>
>>wrote
>>
>>>>>And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
>>>>
>>>>built,
>>>>
>>>>>slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic
>>>>
>>throwing
>>
>>>>>object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
>>>>>http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
>>>>
>>>>The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly domed
>>>
>>(with
>>
>>>>comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the
>>>
>>dogs
>>
>>>>to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what cute
>>>>puppies".
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/dogs.html
>>>
>>>Dude, disc golf rocks.
>>
>>I've been tempted to "accidentally" turn the dogs loose at a disc golf
>>tournament. Oops, sorry, go ahead, get your discs, they won't bite.
>>
>>David
>
>
>
> Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more interesting.

"Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we all
just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel my
vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"

Kalo

kaloalex
November 9th 03, 12:06 AM
gps wrote:
> kaloalex wrote:
>
>>Chopper wrote:
>>
>>>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"kaloalex" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
>>>>>>
>>>>while
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
>>>>>>evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore, playing
>>>>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>frisbees causes obesity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find out
>>>>
>>>>it's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
>>>>
>>>>You're the last to hear about these things because studies have shown
>>>>that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
>>>>eating donuts causes deafness.
>>>>
>>>>You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
>>>>causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
>>>>index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
>>>
>>>
>>>For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating that
>>>eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
>>>
>>
>>I knew it! He's a fadist! Well, I'll be... And here I thought
>>everyone was being too rough on him when he was new. Now I come to find
>>out he's been a fadist all along. What a sneaky subversive Zionistic
>>fadist.
>>
>>Sorry. I don't usually sink to the level of spelling flames, and I just
>>felt the impulse to indulge a little.
>>
>>But seriously, Chopper (if that _is_ your real name), let's look back at
>>your original post in this thread.
>>
>><insert>
>>1) shift your diet toward low fat food
>>2) cut back on overall calories
>>3) do exercise that uses up calories, various CV exercises are good (running
>>etc), one of the very best that is rarely mentioned is hiking. A 5 hour
>>hike, especially in mountainous terrain uses up lots of calories.
>></insert>
>>
>>Frankly, numbers two and three were excellent points and number one was
>>simply deeply cherished conjecture on your part. If the OP lowers his
>>caloric intake and raises his active (and passive) metabolic
>>expenditures, he will lose bodyfat. Case closed.
>>
>>And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose built,
>>slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
>>object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
>>http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
>
>
> So do you ever get down to SD and play Morley? I'm going out on Tuesday
> for a round or two.
> ps

No, I'm strictly NorCal. My transport range is on the order of a
hundred miles from Marysville. Have a great time in the breeze.

Kalo

David Cohen
November 9th 03, 12:38 AM
"kaloalex" > wrote
> Lucas Buck wrote:
> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>"gps" > wrote
> >>>David Cohen wrote:
> >>>>"kaloalex" >
wrote
> >>>>>And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose
built,
> >>>>>slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic
throwing
> >>>>>object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> >>>>>http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
> >>>>
> >>>>The only purpose in throwing a purpose built, slightly
domed(with
> >>>>comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing object is for the
dogs
> >>>>to chase it, play tug with it, and make wimmins go "aw, what
cute
> >>>>puppies".
> >>>
> >>>Dude, disc golf rocks.
> >>
> >>I've been tempted to "accidentally" turn the dogs loose at a disc
golf
> >>tournament. Oops, sorry, go ahead, get your discs, they won't
bite.

> > Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more
interesting.
>
> "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we
all
> just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
> boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel
my
> vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
> itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"

http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
would you suggest this argument might work with?

http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either, but
she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of the
frisbee, however.

David

Wayne S. Hill
November 9th 03, 01:09 AM
David Cohen wrote:

> http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
> The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up
> either, but she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the
> aerodynamic qualities of the frisbee, however.

Throws off the whole center of mass, too.

--
-Wayne

Will
November 9th 03, 01:12 AM
In article et>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "kaloalex" > wrote

> > "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we
> all
> > just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
> > boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel
> my
> > vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
> > itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"
>
> http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
> Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
> would you suggest this argument might work with?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
> The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either, but
> she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of the
> frisbee, however.

Nice dogs.

The other day I went to the dog park (with my friend's 90 lb
rottie-shepherd) and this little Welsh Corgi - Pitbull cross wanted to
play tug of war with me. Damnedest thing I'd ever seen. Sure, I could
pick her up and throw her but there was no way I was prying anything
loose from those jaws.

elzinator
November 9th 03, 02:46 AM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:38:36 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"kaloalex" > wrote

>> > Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more
>interesting.
>>
>> "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we
>all
>> just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
>> boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel
>my
>> vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
>> itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"
>
>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
>Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
>would you suggest this argument might work with?
>
>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
>The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either, but
>she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of the
>frisbee, however.

No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
and Border Collie?)

She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.

http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm

We worked out together this evening. I needed it after sitting through
The Matrix.

Lucas Buck
November 9th 03, 05:55 AM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 21:46:28 -0500, elzinator > wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:38:36 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kaloalex" > wrote
>
>>> > Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more
>>interesting.
>>>
>>> "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we
>>all
>>> just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
>>> boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel
>>my
>>> vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
>>> itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
>>Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
>>would you suggest this argument might work with?
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
>>The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either, but
>>she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of the
>>frisbee, however.
>
>No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
>and Border Collie?)
>
>She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>
>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm

The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
the glowing, color-changing eyes.

That, or she is host to a goa'uld.

David Cohen
November 9th 03, 08:23 AM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote
> elzinator > wrote:
> >On "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >>"kaloalex" >
wrote
> >>> > Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even
more
> >>interesting.
> >>>
> >>> "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't
we
> >>all
> >>> just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each
other's
> >>> boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you
feel
> >>my
> >>> vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world
from
> >>> itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"
> >>
> >>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
> >>Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
> >>would you suggest this argument might work with?
> >>
> >>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
> >>The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either,
but
> >>she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of
the
> >>frisbee, however.
> >
> >No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
> >frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue
Heeler
> >and Border Collie?)
> >
> >She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
> >
> >http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>
> The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
> the glowing, color-changing eyes.
>
> That, or she is host to a goa'uld.

Can they do that? Would they bark in a REAL weird low voice?

Why do they always choose the hot, half naked women to be hosts?
They're wormy things, so it can't be aesthetic.

David

Dr. Dickie
November 9th 03, 10:41 AM
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:57:20 -0500, "Bob Garrison"
> wrote:

>
>"Chopper" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Chopper" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
>> > > k.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > "kaloalex" > wrote
>> > > > > >>is the problem. In the US we eat much more fat than humans did
>> > > > while
>> > > > > >>evolving, and the population is getting obese.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In the US, we play with frisbees much more than humans did while
>> > > > > > evolving, and the population is getting obese. Therefore,
>playing
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > frisbees causes obesity.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Damnit! I thought it was the donuts making me fat. Now I find
>out
>> > > > it's
>> > > > > frisbees. Why am I always the last to hear about these things?
>> > > >
>> > > > You're the last to hear about these things because studies have
>shown
>> > > > that 81.4% of deaf people in the US have eaten donuts, therefore,
>> > > > eating donuts causes deafness.
>> > > >
>> > > > You think Chopper's ever going to figure out the difference between
>> > > > causality and correlation? Or is he going to continue rubbing his
>> > > > index finger up and down over his lips, making that sound?
>> > >
>> > > For people reading this, this guy's a fadist idiot . Somebody stating
>> that
>> > > eating a lot of fat can lead to being fat threatens his little world.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Listen up moron.
>> >
>> > Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
>> calories
>> > than one burns ***regardless of the source of the calories*** DOES
>cause
>> a
>> > person to be fat.
>>
>> Listen up yourself moron. That may be the new mantra picked up by brain
>> deads like yourself but that doesn't make it real.
>>
>> Regular workouts and reducing hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts etc
>in
>> the average American's diet will almost always get favorable results.
>
>Uh huh, so if I eat *ONLY* hamburgers, fat ridden chips and donuts *BUT* I
>eat fewer calories than I burn I'll still get fat. NOT!!!!!!!!!!
>

Give it up Bob, he either lacks the mental acuity to understand, he is
a troll, or he is campaigning for IOM. I really want to believe that
no one old enough to get on-line is THAT stupid, so I would pick
troll.

Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

elzinator
November 9th 03, 01:24 PM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 05:55:54 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 21:46:28 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:38:36 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"kaloalex" > wrote
>>
>>>> > Doing same at an Ultimate Frisbee tournament would be even more
>>>interesting.
>>>>
>>>> "Oh no, doggy-dude, that's not yours! Total bummer, man. Can't we
>>>all
>>>> just agree to, like, get along and stuff and respect each other's
>>>> boundaries? Can you see where I'm coming from, man? Can you feel
>>>my
>>>> vibe? Let's not fight over this frisbee, let's save the world from
>>>> itself, like, wouldn't that be better?"
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0220.jpg
>>>Which one, the 50 pound Pit Bull or the 80 pound American Bulldog,
>>>would you suggest this argument might work with?
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/sammiesdad/Dcp_0968.jpg
>>>The 30 pound Staffordshire Bull Terrier won't give it up either, but
>>>she's light enough to pick up. Ruins the aerodynamic qualities of the
>>>frisbee, however.
>>
>>No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>>frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
>>and Border Collie?)
>>
>>She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>>
>>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>
>The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
>the glowing, color-changing eyes.

>That, or she is host to a goa'uld.

Nah, Tok'ra.

Maggie is high energy and only 2+ yrs old. She reminds me of a younger
version of the black Border Collie I lived with in Texas, also an
Ultimate Frisbee dog (she did compete). Both are extremely
intelligent. Ronie could outcompete Maggie only because of her
maturity, but not athleticism.

With some serious training, Maggie could really kick ass. Her
veterinarian Mom is busy training her new horse, so I've been teaching
her, albeit too infrequently (she's easily distracted).

elzinator
November 9th 03, 01:26 PM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:23:02 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Lucas Buck" > wrote
>> elzinator > wrote:

>> >No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>> >frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue
>Heeler
>> >and Border Collie?)
>> >
>> >She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>> >
>> >http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>>
>> The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
>> the glowing, color-changing eyes.
>>
>> That, or she is host to a goa'uld.
>
>Can they do that? Would they bark in a REAL weird low voice?
>
>Why do they always choose the hot, half naked women to be hosts?
>They're wormy things, so it can't be aesthetic.

I suspect it has something to do with the large mammary mass. Perhaps
the adipose tissue there supplies special nutrients.

DRS
November 9th 03, 08:59 PM
Keith Hobman > wrote in message


[...]

> I'm not sure rice is a great answer for that - highly glycemic.

Apparently Basmatti rice has a lower GI than brown rice.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Lucas Buck
November 9th 03, 10:04 PM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:23:02 GMT, "David Cohen" > wrote:

>> >http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>>
>> The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
>> the glowing, color-changing eyes.
>>
>> That, or she is host to a goa'uld.
>
>Can they do that? Would they bark in a REAL weird low voice?
>
>Why do they always choose the hot, half naked women to be hosts?

Uh, because the female ones want to have hot female hosts. Duh.

Imagine having both Sha're and Carter to choose from. Mmmmmmm.

>They're wormy things, so it can't be aesthetic.
>
>David

Even that Nox chick was kinda hot, though she seemed the type that
would never shave.

Lucas Buck
November 9th 03, 10:25 PM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:24:07 -0500, elzinator > wrote:

>>>No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>>>frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
>>>and Border Collie?)
>>>
>>>She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>>>
>>>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>>
>>The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
>>the glowing, color-changing eyes.
>
>>That, or she is host to a goa'uld.
>
>Nah, Tok'ra.

Tok'ra host eyes don't glow, silly. They just close their eyes to
toggle between host and symbiote. Do try to keep up with the
rest of the class.

>Maggie is high energy and only 2+ yrs old. She reminds me of a younger
>version of the black Border Collie I lived with in Texas, also an
>Ultimate Frisbee dog (she did compete). Both are extremely
>intelligent. Ronie could outcompete Maggie only because of her
>maturity, but not athleticism.
>
>With some serious training, Maggie could really kick ass. Her
>veterinarian Mom is busy training her new horse, so I've been teaching
>her, albeit too infrequently (she's easily distracted).

The mom, or the horse?

This one thinks she's a dog sometimes:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rpic.jpg

gps
November 9th 03, 10:50 PM
kaloalex wrote:
>
> gps wrote:
> > kaloalex wrote:

> >>And yes, a day spent hiking (preferably while chasing a purpose built,
> >>slightly domed (with comlex curvature), high-tech plastic throwing
> >>object in the general direction of a metallic goal [
> >>http://www.disclife.com/ ]) is excellent excercise.
> >
> >
> > So do you ever get down to SD and play Morley? I'm going out on Tuesday
> > for a round or two.
> > ps
>
> No, I'm strictly NorCal. My transport range is on the order of a
> hundred miles from Marysville. Have a great time in the breeze.
>
> Kalo

I don't play much, but the wind is generally not a factor. Now the
trees, otoh, are a sumbitch.
ps

elzinator
November 10th 03, 01:57 AM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:25:32 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:24:07 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
>
>>>>No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>>>>frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
>>>>and Border Collie?)
>>>>
>>>>She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>>>
>>>The Boxer pup is cute, but Maggie appears to be psycho, based on
>>>the glowing, color-changing eyes.
>>
>>>That, or she is host to a goa'uld.
>>
>>Nah, Tok'ra.
>
>Tok'ra host eyes don't glow, silly. They just close their eyes to
>toggle between host and symbiote.

Not Maggie. Her symbiote is a naughty young thing and likes to to play
Goa'uld's Advocate.

>Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.

I'm ahead of you; I sit in the seat in front of you.

>>Maggie is high energy and only 2+ yrs old. She reminds me of a younger
>>version of the black Border Collie I lived with in Texas, also an
>>Ultimate Frisbee dog (she did compete). Both are extremely
>>intelligent. Ronie could outcompete Maggie only because of her
>>maturity, but not athleticism.
>>
>>With some serious training, Maggie could really kick ass. Her
>>veterinarian Mom is busy training her new horse, so I've been teaching
>>her, albeit too infrequently (she's easily distracted).
>
>The mom, or the horse?

Maggie and the horse both.
(Wyatt Burp could be Mr. Shadow's double.)
http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
(bottom of webpage)

>This one thinks she's a dog sometimes:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rpic.jpg

Well, ain't she a cutie :) Quarter horse?

Melstar
November 10th 03, 06:14 AM
Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!
I have never used this thing before and you are obviously a pack of anal
characters, who have nothing better to do in your lives!
Last time I'll check out a pack of losers like you guys!
Have a nice life!

"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don;t like to discriminate - i firmly believe if you insult 10 people
at
> > least one of them deserves it
> >
>
> That sounds like rationalization to me.
>
> But don't worry - eventually you will learn enough so that you can aim
> better. And then you won't need to rationalize about it any more.
>
> Wadda ya think? 20 - 30 years otta do it?
>
> Art
>
>
>
>
>

Murphy
November 10th 03, 06:19 AM
Bob, get a life.

It always amazes me that knobs online get so worked up over such
insignificant matters, maybe switch off the screen Bob, take your hand off
it and get outside Bob and get things into perspective...

Who give a ****, the ng relates to fitness maybe check out alt.topposting
and get your rocks off there...

"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
this
> > conversation.
> >
>
> Quit top-posting.
>
>

Murphy
November 10th 03, 06:21 AM
p.s. Bob stop cross posting you hypocritical ****** !!!!

If you're so caught up on etiquette then practice what you preach... ******
!

"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
this
> > conversation.
> >
>
> Quit top-posting.
>
>

David Cohen
November 10th 03, 06:27 AM
"Murphy" > wrote in message
...
> p.s. Bob stop cross posting you hypocritical ****** !!!!
>
> If you're so caught up on etiquette then practice what you preach...
******
> !

1) Top posting is rude.

2) You whine a lot. I can call you a waaambulance, if you feel the
need.

3) To quote one of your fellow Down Underites: "Quit posting please
dammit to hell and goddamn ****, **** assbum,
****y********!!"...Michael Haselhof

David
--
"This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112


> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add
something to
> this
> > > conversation.
> > >
> >
> > Quit top-posting.
> >
> >
>
>

Murphy
November 10th 03, 06:30 AM
Quite aggressive there David, got some issues built up you need help with or
is it that she left you for a non ****stick type ?
Maybe you and Bob should get together in the steam room and relieve some of
that built up tension.

"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
> this
> > > conversation.
> > >
> >
> > Quit top-posting.
> >
> if you are new, we don't like you so **** off,
>
>

Murphy
November 10th 03, 06:39 AM
Rude? Who cares...
But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross post ? Or
were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning someone who
presented valid feedback ?
Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or a fool by the
true meaning of the word.

Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !


"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > p.s. Bob stop cross posting you hypocritical ****** !!!!
> >
> > If you're so caught up on etiquette then practice what you preach...
> ******
> > !
>
> 1) Top posting is rude.
>
> 2) You whine a lot. I can call you a waaambulance, if you feel the
> need.
>
> 3) To quote one of your fellow Down Underites: "Quit posting please
> dammit to hell and goddamn ****, **** assbum,
> ****y********!!"...Michael Haselhof
>
> David
> --
> "This is the worse forum alive."- kev2112
>
>
> > "Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add
> something to
> > this
> > > > conversation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Quit top-posting.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Lucas Buck
November 10th 03, 06:51 AM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:14:25 GMT, "Melstar" > wrote:

>Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!

jpegs please

Art S
November 10th 03, 07:51 AM
"Melstar" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the nice welcome guys.

*sigh*
You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
post (which you did again). It is considered rude.

> You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!

I don't think anyone referred to you as a guy. Hudson was talking
about Bob.

> I have never used this thing before and you are obviously a pack of anal
> characters, who have nothing better to do in your lives!

I don't think anyone was being anal. We can be, if you'd like, though.

> Last time I'll check out a pack of losers like you guys!

Oh, darn. And shucky-poo!

> Have a nice life!
>

You too.

By the way - for the vast majority of the population, diet control
is the major factor in losing weight (be it fat or muscle). Unless
you spend all day in physical activity, you can easily eat more
calories than you are using by exercising (or that you will burn
due to the additional muscle) regardless of whether you are doing
cardio exercises or weight lifting.

As such, neither weight lifting nor cardio exercises (excluding
ultra marathons and the like) _without diet control_ is "best"
for fat loss.

Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.

The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
_their_ goals.

You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.

Art

Lucas Buck
November 10th 03, 08:03 AM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 20:57:26 -0500, elzinator > wrote:

>>>With some serious training, Maggie could really kick ass. Her
>>>veterinarian Mom is busy training her new horse, so I've been teaching
>>>her, albeit too infrequently (she's easily distracted).
>>
>>The mom, or the horse?
>
>Maggie and the horse both.
>(Wyatt Burp could be Mr. Shadow's double.)
>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>(bottom of webpage)
>
>>This one thinks she's a dog sometimes:
>>http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rpic.jpg
>
>Well, ain't she a cutie :) Quarter horse?

Nope, she's ALL horse.

Here, she and mommy share a snack:
http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rspic.jpg

David
November 10th 03, 08:16 AM
"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>
> *sigh*
> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
[...]
> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> _their_ goals.
>
> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
>
> Art
>
what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of posts?
I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
recorded. thanks
>
>
>
>

John HUDSON
November 10th 03, 08:50 AM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Melstar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>>
>> *sigh*
>> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
>> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
>[...]
>> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
>> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
>> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
>> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
>> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
>> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
>>
>> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
>> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
>> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
>> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
>> _their_ goals.
>>
>> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
>> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
>>
>> Art
>>
>what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
>have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of posts?
>I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
>recorded. thanks

Try:
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

David
November 10th 03, 09:52 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Art S" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >>
> >> *sigh*
> >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> >[...]
> >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> >>
> >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> >> _their_ goals.
> >>
> >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
> >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
posts?
> >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> >recorded. thanks
>
> Try:
> http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en


thanks John now I can be smart like everyone else!>

David
November 10th 03, 11:11 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Art S" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >>
> >> *sigh*
> >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> >[...]
> >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> >>
> >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> >> _their_ goals.
> >>
> >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> >>
> >> Art
> >>
> >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
> >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
posts?
> >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> >recorded. thanks
>
> Try:
> http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en

"Hudson, you wouldn't know humour if it crawled up your arse and shot
dancing monkeys out your nose" - remember? What did you do to deserve that?
but then he was an annoying troll and probably killfiled by people like
David Cohen
>

John HUDSON
November 10th 03, 11:52 AM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:11:57 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Art S" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>> >>
>> >> *sigh*
>> >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
>> >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
>> >[...]
>> >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
>> >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
>> >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
>> >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
>> >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
>> >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
>> >>
>> >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
>> >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
>> >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
>> >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
>> >> _their_ goals.
>> >>
>> >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
>> >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
>> >>
>> >> Art
>> >>
>> >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
>> >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
>posts?
>> >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
>> >recorded. thanks
>>
>> Try:
>> http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
>
>"Hudson, you wouldn't know humour if it crawled up your arse and shot
>dancing monkeys out your nose" - remember? What did you do to deserve that?

Google away David, you'll find hundreds just like it - plus my
'appropriate' responses!! ;o)

>but then he was an annoying troll and probably killfiled by people like
>David Cohen

mmmmmmmmmm.............

David
November 10th 03, 12:21 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:11:57 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Art S" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >> >>
> >> >> *sigh*
> >> >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> >> >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> >> >[...]
> >> >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> >> >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> >> >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> >> >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> >> >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> >> >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> >> >>
> >> >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> >> >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> >> >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> >> >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> >> >> _their_ goals.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> >> >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> >> >>
> >> >> Art
> >> >>
> >> >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this
person - I
> >> >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
> >posts?
> >> >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> >> >recorded. thanks
> >>
> >> Try:
> >> http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
> >
> >"Hudson, you wouldn't know humour if it crawled up your arse and shot
> >dancing monkeys out your nose" - remember? What did you do to deserve
that?
>
> Google away David, you'll find hundreds just like it - plus my
> 'appropriate' responses!! ;o)

yep, some ding dong exchanges there - great stuff!
>
> >but then he was an annoying troll and probably killfiled by people like
> >David Cohen
>
> mmmmmmmmmm.............

Bob Garrison
November 10th 03, 01:06 PM
"Murphy" > wrote in message
...
> Bob, get a life.
>
> It always amazes me that knobs online get so worked up over such
> insignificant matters, maybe switch off the screen Bob, take your hand off
> it and get outside Bob and get things into perspective...
>
> Who give a ****, the ng relates to fitness maybe check out alt.topposting
> and get your rocks off there...
>

Eat **** and die stupid mother****er!

/ ~ \
|\__/
| |
| . |
| `.` |
__| `` | `.` |/~~\
/ | | | `` |/~~\
| | | | | `` | /
\ ` . . | |
\ . . ` /
\ . . /
\ . /
| . |
| |
| |
| |
/------------\

Theresa
November 10th 03, 01:55 PM
>> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
>> calories than one burns ***regardless of the source of the
>> calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.

Well, okay.

But surely it's easier to overeat calorically dense foods (e.g. Krispy Kreme
chocolate creams, mmm) than calorically sparse foods (broccoli, sigh).

Right?

Lee Michaels
November 10th 03, 02:18 PM
"Murphy" > wrote in message
...
> Rude? Who cares...
> But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross post ? Or
> were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning someone who
> presented valid feedback ?
> Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or a fool by
the
> true meaning of the word.
>
> Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
>

Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with you.

Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that only eixists
in his fantasy world.

But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that you do at
thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada? (Is the
wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)

Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?

Bob Garrison
November 10th 03, 02:26 PM
"Theresa" > wrote in message
...
> >> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
> >> calories than one burns ***regardless of the source of the
> >> calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.
>
> Well, okay.
>
> But surely it's easier to overeat calorically dense foods (e.g. Krispy
Kreme
> chocolate creams, mmm) than calorically sparse foods (broccoli, sigh).
>
> Right?
>

Sure, no argument there.

Chupacabra
November 10th 03, 02:36 PM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 07:55:00 -0600, "Theresa" >
wrote:

>>> Eating a lot of fat does not cause a person to be fat. Eating more
>>> calories than one burns ***regardless of the source of the
>>> calories*** DOES cause a person to be fat.
>
>Well, okay.
>
>But surely it's easier to overeat calorically dense foods (e.g. Krispy Kreme
>chocolate creams, mmm) than calorically sparse foods (broccoli, sigh).
>
>Right?
>

Right. But calorically dense foods are not necessarily foods that are
high in fat. When I was a portly young lad, I did it with beer and
fat-free candy (gummi bears, Twizlers, whatever). I was eating a very
low-fat diet at the time - maybe 10% of my total calories.

David Cohen
November 10th 03, 04:14 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote
> "Murphy" > wrote
> > Rude? Who cares...
> > But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross
post ? Or
> > were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning
someone who
> > presented valid feedback ?
> > Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or a
fool by
> the
> > true meaning of the word.
> >
> > Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
> >
> Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with you.
>
> Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that only
eixists
> in his fantasy world.
>
> But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that you do
at
> thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada?
(Is the
> wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)
>
> Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?

Obviously, I can't be 13.

Unfortunately, that means I am "a fool by the true meaning of the
word".

I can live with that.

David

Lee Michaels
November 10th 03, 04:26 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote
> > "Murphy" > wrote
> > > Rude? Who cares...
> > > But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross
> post ? Or
> > > were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning
> someone who
> > > presented valid feedback ?
> > > Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or a
> fool by
> > the
> > > true meaning of the word.
> > >
> > > Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
> > >
> > Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with you.
> >
> > Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that only
> eixists
> > in his fantasy world.
> >
> > But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that you do
> at
> > thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada?
> (Is the
> > wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)
> >
> > Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?
>
> Obviously, I can't be 13.
>
> Unfortunately, that means I am "a fool by the true meaning of the
> word".
>
> I can live with that.
>
fool n.
1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have quit my
job.
3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe: They made
a fool of me by pretending I had won.
4. Informal. A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain activity: a
dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided entertainment, as
with jokes or antics; a jester.
6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social conformity
in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or custard and
served cold.
8. Archaic. A mentally deficient person; an idiot.


"True meaning of the word??"

I would say either 6 or 7. <G>

David Cohen
November 10th 03, 05:01 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
> > "Lee Michaels" > wrote
> > > "Murphy" > wrote
> > > > Rude? Who cares...
> > > > But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross
> > post ? Or
> > > > were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning
> > someone who
> > > > presented valid feedback ?
> > > > Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or
a
> > fool by
> > > the
> > > > true meaning of the word.
> > > >
> > > > Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
> > > >
> > > Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with
you.
> > >
> > > Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that
only
> > eixists
> > > in his fantasy world.
> > >
> > > But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that
you do
> > at
> > > thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada?
> > (Is the
> > > wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)
> > >
> > > Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?
> >
> > Obviously, I can't be 13.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that means I am "a fool by the true meaning of the
> > word".
> >
> > I can live with that.
> >
> fool n.
> 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
> 2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have
quit my
> job.
> 3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe:
They made
> a fool of me by pretending I had won.
> 4. Informal. A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain
activity: a
> dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
> 5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided
entertainment, as
> with jokes or antics; a jester.
> 6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social
conformity
> in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
> 7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or
custard and
> served cold.
> 8. Archaic. A mentally deficient person; an idiot.
>
> "True meaning of the word??"
>
> I would say either 6 or 7. <G>

I was hoping for 4 ("he's a wimmin-pleasurin' fool").

I'd settle for being a dessert.

David
>
>
>
>
>

Theresa
November 10th 03, 05:17 PM
>> fool n.
>> 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
>> 2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have
>> quit my job.
>> 3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe:
>> They made a fool of me by pretending I had won.
>> 4. Informal. A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain
>> activity: a dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
>> 5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided
>> entertainment, as with jokes or antics; a jester.
>> 6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social
>> conformity in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
>> 7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or
>> custard and served cold.
>> 8. Archaic. A mentally deficient person; an idiot.
>>
>> "True meaning of the word??"
>>
>> I would say either 6 or 7. <G>
>
> I was hoping for 4 ("he's a women-pleasuring fool").
>
> I'd settle for being a dessert.
>
> David

AND a floor wax!

gps
November 10th 03, 05:25 PM
David wrote:
>
> "Art S" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >
> > *sigh*
> > You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> > what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> [...]
> > Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> > or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> > they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> > guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> > day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> > the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> > cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> > interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> > to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> > _their_ goals.
> >
> > You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> > they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> >
> > Art
> >
> what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person - I
> have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of posts?
> I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> recorded. thanks

It's not uncharacteristic of Art at all. He's generally a very patient
person. I thought you already knew how to use google.
ps

David
November 10th 03, 06:27 PM
"gps" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> >
> > "Art S" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > > You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> > > what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> > [...]
> > > Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> > > or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> > > they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> > > guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> > > day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> > > the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> > >
> > > The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> > > cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> > > interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> > > to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> > > _their_ goals.
> > >
> > > You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> > > they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> > >
> > > Art
> > >
> > what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person -
I
> > have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
posts?
> > I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> > recorded. thanks
>
> It's not uncharacteristic of Art at all. He's generally a very patient
> person. I thought you already knew how to use google.
> ps

actually you're right. however that post (IMHO) stood out even for a patient
person as *particularly* patient. - about using google I never knew about
the 'advanced' search - would just be finding references to mfw in normal
googling and thought that was 'it' - (never claimed to be smart!)

Murphy
November 10th 03, 10:09 PM
Like I said Bob, just an immature ******...

"Bob Garrison" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Bob, get a life.
> >
> > It always amazes me that knobs online get so worked up over such
> > insignificant matters, maybe switch off the screen Bob, take your hand
off
> > it and get outside Bob and get things into perspective...
> >
> > Who give a ****, the ng relates to fitness maybe check out
alt.topposting
> > and get your rocks off there...
> >
>
> Eat **** and die stupid mother****er!
>
> / ~ \
> |\__/
> | |
> | . |
> | `.` |
> __| `` | `.` |/~~\
> / | | | `` |/~~\
> | | | | | `` | /
> \ ` . . | |
> \ . . ` /
> \ . . /
> \ . /
> | . |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> /------------\
>
>

elzinator
November 10th 03, 10:48 PM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:03:08 GMT, Lucas Buck
> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 20:57:26 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
>
>>>>With some serious training, Maggie could really kick ass. Her
>>>>veterinarian Mom is busy training her new horse, so I've been teaching
>>>>her, albeit too infrequently (she's easily distracted).
>>>
>>>The mom, or the horse?
>>
>>Maggie and the horse both.
>>(Wyatt Burp could be Mr. Shadow's double.)
>>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm
>>(bottom of webpage)
>>
>>>This one thinks she's a dog sometimes:
>>>http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rpic.jpg
>>
>>Well, ain't she a cutie :) Quarter horse?
>
>Nope, she's ALL horse.
>
>Here, she and mommy share a snack:
>http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rspic.jpg

Mmmmmm.....alfalfa...
In Oregon we called it California Tea (where most of the high quality
alfalfa was grown; 'spensive, too)

Mom's a good looker.

Lisa
November 11th 03, 04:07 AM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote ...
> Here, she and mommy share a snack:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~sbcpark/images/rspic.jpg
>

Nice hindquarters on the mare. Who's the sire?
---
Lisa

Lucas Buck
November 11th 03, 08:01 AM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 21:46:28 -0500, elzinator > wrote:
>
>No canine can top Maggie at athleticism and endurance, especially
>frisbee. She is the ultimate Ultimate Frisbee dog. (part Blue Heeler
>and Border Collie?)
>
>She's my surrogate canine. We play Extreme Doggie Sports.
>
>http://www.moleculegirl.com/my_canine_pals.htm


BTW, did you think to put her in a blue lab coat for a Halloween outfit?
(i.e. she'd be dressed as a Blue Healer)

David
November 11th 03, 10:20 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote
> > > "Lee Michaels" > wrote
> > > > "Murphy" > wrote
> > > > > Rude? Who cares...
> > > > > But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross
> > > post ? Or
> > > > > were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning
> > > someone who
> > > > > presented valid feedback ?
> > > > > Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or
> a
> > > fool by
> > > > the
> > > > > true meaning of the word.
> > > > >
> > > > > Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
> > > > >
> > > > Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with
> you.
> > > >
> > > > Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that
> only
> > > eixists
> > > > in his fantasy world.
> > > >
> > > > But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that
> you do
> > > at
> > > > thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada?
> > > (Is the
> > > > wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)
> > > >
> > > > Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?
> > >
> > > Obviously, I can't be 13.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, that means I am "a fool by the true meaning of the
> > > word".
> > >
> > > I can live with that.
> > >
> > fool n.
> > 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
> > 2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have
> quit my
> > job.
> > 3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe:
> They made
> > a fool of me by pretending I had won.
> > 4. Informal. A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain
> activity: a
> > dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
> > 5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided
> entertainment, as
> > with jokes or antics; a jester.
> > 6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social
> conformity
> > in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
> > 7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or
> custard and
> > served cold.
> > 8. Archaic. A mentally deficient person; an idiot.
> >
> > "True meaning of the word??"
> >
> > I would say either 6 or 7. <G>
>
> I was hoping for 4 ("he's a wimmin-pleasurin' fool").
>
> I'd settle for being a dessert.
>
> David


OK, that's it!! - you've just been KILLFILED!!! I hate trolls!!! Go join
your friends Fabiab and dogcather!! You are as of now cast into oblivion. I
had some hope for you but now see that you are hopeless!!
> >
>
>

John HUDSON
November 11th 03, 11:10 AM
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:20:31 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote
>> > > "Lee Michaels" > wrote
>> > > > "Murphy" > wrote
>> > > > > Rude? Who cares...
>> > > > > But if you are so caught up on etiquette then why do you cross
>> > > post ? Or
>> > > > > were you just trying to act tough in a newsgroup by canning
>> > > someone who
>> > > > > presented valid feedback ?
>> > > > > Regards your ambulance comment, you are either 13 years old or
>> a
>> > > fool by
>> > > > the
>> > > > > true meaning of the word.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Life I said originally, get a life you ****** !
>> > > > >
>> > > > Hey there David, Retard Murphy (of Murphy's Law) is upset with
>> you.
>> > > >
>> > > > Something about not conforming to a standard of behavior that
>> only
>> > > eixists
>> > > > in his fantasy world.
>> > > >
>> > > > But he raises an interesting question. How do you do all that
>> you do
>> > > at
>> > > > thirteen years of age?? And is is legal in the state of Nevada?
>> > > (Is the
>> > > > wifey doing anything illegal with you on a semi regular basis?)
>> > > >
>> > > > Or are you just an incredible stud at an early age?
>> > >
>> > > Obviously, I can't be 13.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately, that means I am "a fool by the true meaning of the
>> > > word".
>> > >
>> > > I can live with that.
>> > >
>> > fool n.
>> > 1. One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.
>> > 2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have
>> quit my
>> > job.
>> > 3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe:
>> They made
>> > a fool of me by pretending I had won.
>> > 4. Informal. A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain
>> activity: a
>> > dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
>> > 5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided
>> entertainment, as
>> > with jokes or antics; a jester.
>> > 6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social
>> conformity
>> > in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
>> > 7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or
>> custard and
>> > served cold.
>> > 8. Archaic. A mentally deficient person; an idiot.
>> >
>> > "True meaning of the word??"
>> >
>> > I would say either 6 or 7. <G>
>>
>> I was hoping for 4 ("he's a wimmin-pleasurin' fool").
>>
>> I'd settle for being a dessert.
>>
>> David
>
>
>OK, that's it!! - you've just been KILLFILED!!! I hate trolls!!! Go join
>your friends Fabiab and dogcather!! You are as of now cast into oblivion. I
>had some hope for you but now see that you are hopeless!!

You're quite justified David (the other one); all this light-hearted
good humour, and enjoying oneself, is very wearing and irresponsible,
particularly when there are so many other serious and on-topic matters
to consider.

It really is very tiresome and irresponsible!

Murphy
November 11th 03, 11:41 PM
lol, you wish... you know you'll go blind. Look what happened to Bob & David
if you don't believe me, admittedly they pull each other but the end product
is the same.

"Lucas Buck" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:14:25 GMT, "Melstar" > wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!
>
> jpegs please
>
>
>

Murphy
November 12th 03, 04:20 AM
"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>
> *sigh*
> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> post (which you did again). It is considered rude.

If we are so caught up on manners in here then lets start at the basics and
worry about the position of the post later

>
> > You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!
>
> I don't think anyone referred to you as a guy. Hudson was talking
> about Bob.

Wrong. See John Hudson
"That's funny!
He's not "new" - which makes it even funnier! ;o)"

>
> > I have never used this thing before and you are obviously a pack of anal
> > characters, who have nothing better to do in your lives!
>
> I don't think anyone was being anal. We can be, if you'd like, though.

I know Bob and David who are definately anal, and I suspect enjoy being anal
together.

>
> > Last time I'll check out a pack of losers like you guys!
>
> Oh, darn. And shucky-poo!

Pity, she may have had some valid input into this group other than the
majority of replies she received other than your reply below.

>
> > Have a nice life!
> >
>
> You too.
>
> By the way - for the vast majority of the population, diet control
> is the major factor in losing weight (be it fat or muscle). Unless
> you spend all day in physical activity, you can easily eat more
> calories than you are using by exercising (or that you will burn
> due to the additional muscle) regardless of whether you are doing
> cardio exercises or weight lifting.
>
> As such, neither weight lifting nor cardio exercises (excluding
> ultra marathons and the like) _without diet control_ is "best"
> for fat loss.
>
> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> _their_ goals.
>
> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
>
> Art
>
>
>
>
>
>

Murphy
November 12th 03, 04:20 AM
"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Art S" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> > >>
> > >> *sigh*
> > >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> > >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> > >[...]
> > >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> > >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> > >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> > >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> > >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> > >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> > >>
> > >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> > >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> > >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> > >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> > >> _their_ goals.
> > >>
> > >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> > >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> > >>
> > >> Art
> > >>
> > >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person -
I
> > >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
> posts?
> > >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> > >recorded. thanks
> >
> > Try:
> > http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
>
>
> thanks John now I can be smart like everyone else!>
>
>

Forget it. It'll never happen !

David
November 12th 03, 06:32 AM
"Murphy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Art S" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> > > >>
> > > >> *sigh*
> > > >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> > > >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> > > >[...]
> > > >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> > > >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> > > >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> > > >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> > > >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> > > >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> > > >>
> > > >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> > > >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> > > >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> > > >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> > > >> _their_ goals.
> > > >>
> > > >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> > > >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> > > >>
> > > >> Art
> > > >>
> > > >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this
person -
> I
> > > >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
> > posts?
> > > >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> > > >recorded. thanks
> > >
> > > Try:
> > > http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
> >
> >
> > thanks John now I can be smart like everyone else!>
> >
> >
>
> Forget it. It'll never happen !
>
I wasn't dumb enough to ever think I could be as smart as you are Murphy - I
am talking about most people>

John HUDSON
November 12th 03, 09:02 AM
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:20:27 GMT, "Murphy" > wrote:

>
>"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Melstar" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>>
>> *sigh*
>> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
>> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
>> post (which you did again). It is considered rude.
>
>If we are so caught up on manners in here then lets start at the basics and
>worry about the position of the post later
>
>>
>> > You obviously know nothing... I am a girl not a guy!
>>
>> I don't think anyone referred to you as a guy. Hudson was talking
>> about Bob.
>
>Wrong. See John Hudson
>"That's funny!
>He's not "new" - which makes it even funnier! ;o)"

I was referring to Bob Garrison!


>> > I have never used this thing before and you are obviously a pack of anal
>> > characters, who have nothing better to do in your lives!
>>
>> I don't think anyone was being anal. We can be, if you'd like, though.
>
>I know Bob and David who are definately anal, and I suspect enjoy being anal
>together.

That is a slur on two fine upstanding men of outstanding ability. ;o)

>
>> > Last time I'll check out a pack of losers like you guys!
>>
>> Oh, darn. And shucky-poo!
>
>Pity, she may have had some valid input into this group other than the
>majority of replies she received other than your reply below.
>
>>
>> > Have a nice life!

John HUDSON
November 12th 03, 09:03 AM
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:32:23 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Murphy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "David" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >"Art S" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >>
>> > > >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
>> > > >> ...
>> > > >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> *sigh*
>> > > >> You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
>> > > >> what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
>> > > >[...]
>> > > >> Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
>> > > >> or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
>> > > >> they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
>> > > >> guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
>> > > >> day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
>> > > >> the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
>> > > >> cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
>> > > >> interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
>> > > >> to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
>> > > >> _their_ goals.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
>> > > >> they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Art
>> > > >>
>> > > >what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this
>person -
>> I
>> > > >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
>> > posts?
>> > > >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
>> > > >recorded. thanks
>> > >
>> > > Try:
>> > > http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
>> >
>> >
>> > thanks John now I can be smart like everyone else!>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Forget it. It'll never happen !
>>
>I wasn't dumb enough to ever think I could be as smart as you are Murphy - I
>am talking about most people>

You're smarter than the average bear! ;o)

>

David
November 12th 03, 11:55 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:32:23 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "David" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:16:38 GMT, "David" >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"Art S" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> >> > > >> ...
> >> > > >> > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> >> > > >>

[.......]
patience with this
> >person -
> >> I
> >> > > >have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record
of
> >> > posts?
> >> > > >I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these
are
> >> > > >recorded. thanks
> >> > >
> >> > > Try:
> >> > > http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > thanks John now I can be smart like everyone else!>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Forget it. It'll never happen !
> >>
> >I wasn't dumb enough to ever think I could be as smart as you are
Murphy - I
> >am talking about most people>
>
> You're smarter than the average bear! ;o)
>
bearing in mind the average bear barely has an IQ of maybe 6
>

Granola Bar
November 12th 03, 07:49 PM
(RM) wrote in message >...
> If I read you right, 15 mts jogging everyday followed by strength
> training will help. Right?


Yes... Personally I dont like running till the end but I noticed with
my brother that doing it before had better results.

gps
November 15th 03, 07:04 PM
David wrote:
>
> "gps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > David wrote:
> > >
> > > "Art S" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Thanks for the nice welcome guys.
> > > >
> > > > *sigh*
> > > > You ran up against a couple trolls. (Use google if you don't know
> > > > what they are). Oh - and Bob, who was advising you not to top-
> > > [...]
> > > > Moreover, "best" is a value judgment. Whether weight lifting
> > > > or cardio is "better" depends on the person's goals and what
> > > > they are willing to do. If I can give you an exercise that is
> > > > guaranteed to burn up all of your "excess" fat in one hour per
> > > > day and you can't stand the exercise and refuse to do it, it isn't
> > > > the "best" method - for you by any stretch of the imagination.
> > > >
> > > > The people in misc.fitness.aerobic are going to tend to view
> > > > cardio as "better" because it is more in line with their goals and
> > > > interests. The people in misc.fitness.weights are going to tend
> > > > to view weight lifting as "better" because it is more in line with
> > > > _their_ goals.
> > > >
> > > > You might want to think about the rest of your statements, as
> > > > they have similar assumptions/inaccuracies.
> > > >
> > > > Art
> > > >
> > > what a good post Art, such uncharacteristic patience with this person -
> I
> > > have an embarassing question - where do I google to find a record of
> posts?
> > > I looked around various mfw sites and couldn't find where these are
> > > recorded. thanks
> >
> > It's not uncharacteristic of Art at all. He's generally a very patient
> > person. I thought you already knew how to use google.
> > ps
>
> actually you're right. however that post (IMHO) stood out even for a patient
> person as *particularly* patient. - about using google I never knew about
> the 'advanced' search - would just be finding references to mfw in normal
> googling and thought that was 'it' - (never claimed to be smart!)

Advanced search options are very helpful.
ps

atec77
December 18th 03, 12:07 PM
Why ?. does it irritate you ?.

Bob Garrison wrote:
>
> "Melstar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to this
> > conversation.
> >
>
> Quit top-posting.

JC Der Koenig
December 19th 03, 01:50 AM
That's kinda ****ed up.

--
JC

"atec77" > wrote in message
...
> Why ?. does it irritate you ?.
>
> Bob Garrison wrote:
> >
> > "Melstar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm new to this news group thing, but just wanted to add something to
this
> > > conversation.
> > >
> >
> > Quit top-posting.

mush97
February 22nd 06, 05:52 AM
Slow and steady wins the race.


"B a r r y B u r k e J r ." > wrote
in message ...
> On 31 Oct 2003 12:50:44 -0800, (RM) wrote:
>
>>What is the right way of reducing body fat percentage for men?
>
> Eat less, exercise more.
>