PDA

View Full Version : The Perfect Protein Supplement -- Why Not??


NYC XYZ
September 18th 06, 07:11 PM
The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?

Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?

Not that I can make heads or tails out of all the claims, anyway -- but
I've come across rather few all-in-one protein supplements. The ones I
have come across seem pretty weak on protein-per-serving, or really
pack on the calories. I think a nicely balanced on would be 30-40 g of
protein per serving, at no more than ~210 calories, with creatine or
whatever the hell's supposed to help fuel muscles during the workout
itself, etc. If the thing is so essential, why not just throw it in
the mix!

I love a good meal after working out, but I'm sure I'm loading up
hundreds more calories than protein, so, supplement-skeptic that I am,
I'm going to have to finally get serious about taking these protein
shakes. Still, I've taken these shakes as meal replacements every now
and then, only to be hungry in another hour or two!

TC
September 18th 06, 07:21 PM
Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
any powder in a plastic jug.

TC

NYC XYZ wrote:
> The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?
>
> Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
> just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?
>
> Not that I can make heads or tails out of all the claims, anyway -- but
> I've come across rather few all-in-one protein supplements. The ones I
> have come across seem pretty weak on protein-per-serving, or really
> pack on the calories. I think a nicely balanced on would be 30-40 g of
> protein per serving, at no more than ~210 calories, with creatine or
> whatever the hell's supposed to help fuel muscles during the workout
> itself, etc. If the thing is so essential, why not just throw it in
> the mix!
>
> I love a good meal after working out, but I'm sure I'm loading up
> hundreds more calories than protein, so, supplement-skeptic that I am,
> I'm going to have to finally get serious about taking these protein
> shakes. Still, I've taken these shakes as meal replacements every now
> and then, only to be hungry in another hour or two!

NYC XYZ
September 19th 06, 06:16 AM
TC wrote:
> Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> any powder in a plastic jug.
>
> TC


I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)

I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
just ingest them only and still be healthy.

Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
suffice, no?

September 19th 06, 12:19 PM
TC ha escrito:

> Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> any powder in a plastic jug.
>
> TC

For many reasons, for someone in any sport that implies muscle
development, the daily intake of proteins should be around 2 gr./day.
Had someone to take that much protein form eggs or meat, the
cholesterol and fat intake would be a tad too much. That's why whey
proteins and eggs proteins are usually isolated. Indeed, when i buy
proteins i'd like to pay just for proteins present in foods we've been
eating for milleniums so i get sure it's harmless. Problem is the
quantity, proteins excess in harmful for the liver, kidneys, etc. as is
any incomplete diet.

But then again, how do you know the meat, fish and eggs you're
talking about are natural, did you raised those fish, chickens and beef
yourself? May i remember how many problems has been around chickens and
beefs in Europe recently? Some farmers are given them utter **** as
food -they made a paste with dead chickens, useless parts of chickens
as bones, beaks, etc. and give the paste in return to the chickens-,
and to further worsen things this is just the beggining.

JMW
September 20th 06, 02:27 AM
"NYC XYZ" > wrote:

>
>The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?
>
>Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
>just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?

EAS Phophagain. It's been around for at least ten years. Perfect for
people like you who are too lazy to toss a rounded teaspoon of
creatine into your whey powder.

Bully
September 20th 06, 06:39 AM
NYC XYZ wrote:
> The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?
>
> Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
> just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?

Price!

>
> Not that I can make heads or tails out of all the claims, anyway --
> but I've come across rather few all-in-one protein supplements. The
> ones I have come across seem pretty weak on protein-per-serving, or
> really pack on the calories. I think a nicely balanced on would be
> 30-40 g of protein per serving, at no more than ~210 calories, with
> creatine or whatever the hell's supposed to help fuel muscles during
> the workout itself, etc. If the thing is so essential, why not just
> throw it in the mix!
>
> I love a good meal after working out, but I'm sure I'm loading up
> hundreds more calories than protein, so, supplement-skeptic that I am,
> I'm going to have to finally get serious about taking these protein
> shakes. Still, I've taken these shakes as meal replacements every now
> and then, only to be hungry in another hour or two!



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

TC
September 20th 06, 03:03 PM
NYC XYZ wrote:
> TC wrote:
> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> > any powder in a plastic jug.
> >
> > TC
>
>
> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>
> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>
> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
> suffice, no?

The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.

Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two nutrients
in large amounts serves only to:

1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and
2) leave the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it
is used to getting from real food.

It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a highly
unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good thing.

TC

TC
September 20th 06, 03:11 PM
wrote:
> TC ha escrito:
>
> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> > any powder in a plastic jug.
> >
> > TC
>
> For many reasons, for someone in any sport that implies muscle
> development, the daily intake of proteins should be around 2 gr./day.
> Had someone to take that much protein form eggs or meat, the
> cholesterol and fat intake would be a tad too much. That's why whey
> proteins and eggs proteins are usually isolated. Indeed, when i buy
> proteins i'd like to pay just for proteins present in foods we've been
> eating for milleniums so i get sure it's harmless. Problem is the
> quantity, proteins excess in harmful for the liver, kidneys, etc. as is
> any incomplete diet.

First of all, dietary cholesterol does not equate to blood cholesterol.
High refined carb diets lead to cholesterol imbalances. There is
nothing wrong with eating real eggs and real butter and real milk.

Proteins from real food rarely, if ever, causes excess protein related
problems. Isolated, processed and manufactured proteins, on the other
had, are a different story. Your body did not evolve eating isolated
proteins. It knows how to handle real meat. For millions of years the
only proteins we had were real meats, fish, eggs, etc. Do you think
that all of a sudden in the 21st century this food suddenly becomes a
health problem? Not likely.

>
> But then again, how do you know the meat, fish and eggs you're
> talking about are natural, did you raised those fish, chickens and beef
> yourself? May i remember how many problems has been around chickens and
> beefs in Europe recently? Some farmers are given them utter **** as
> food -they made a paste with dead chickens, useless parts of chickens
> as bones, beaks, etc. and give the paste in return to the chickens-,
> and to further worsen things this is just the beggining.

That is where it becomes important to know where your grocer gets his
eggs and meat from. Most meat, fish and eggs are perfectly fine. Your
examples are the exception not the rule. Buy locally and avoid the
larger grocers.

TC

David
September 20th 06, 03:35 PM
"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> TC wrote:
>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >
>> > TC
>>
>>
>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>>
>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>>
>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> suffice, no?
>
> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.

the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.

>
> Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
> mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two nutrients
> in large amounts serves only to:
>
> 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and
> 2) leave the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it
> is used to getting from real food.
>
> It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a highly
> unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good thing.
>
> TC
>

Charles
September 20th 06, 03:47 PM
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> TC wrote:
>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>>> >
>>> > TC
>>>
>>>
>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>>>
>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>>>
>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>>> suffice, no?
>>
>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>
>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.

Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
what legs are four! ;o)

TC
September 20th 06, 03:55 PM
David wrote:
> "TC" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > NYC XYZ wrote:
> >> TC wrote:
> >> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> >> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> >> > any powder in a plastic jug.
> >> >
> >> > TC
> >>
> >>
> >> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
> >> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
> >> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
> >>
> >> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
> >> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
> >> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
> >> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
> >>
> >> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
> >> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
> >> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
> >> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
> >> suffice, no?
> >
> > The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
> > legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
> > table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
> > remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
> > needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
> > that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
> > a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
> > of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>
> the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.

But many have three or six.

>
> >
> > Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
> > mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two nutrients
> > in large amounts serves only to:
> >
> > 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and
> > 2) leave the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it
> > is used to getting from real food.
> >
> > It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a highly
> > unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good thing.
> >
> > TC
> >

NYC XYZ
September 20th 06, 04:04 PM
Wait...what other nutrients are there besides protein and the Centrum
A-to-Zinc?

Haha, no, seriously: whatever nutrients are needed, couldn't they just
put all that into a pill, a mix, a granola bar, etc.?

It might not sell, taste good, etc. -- but it's technically possible,
right? And on them missions to Mars, isn't that just what astronauts
would get served? Well, maybe for morale they'll pack a microwave oven
along...but you see my point.

I've heard the "complexity" argument before, but it seems to beg the
question of why, if it's technically possible (as it appears to be), a
pill/mix/bar with all the necessary nutrients -- even for athletes, not
just "ordinary people" -- wouldn't be the way to go...especially
against something like famine and world hunger! Seriously, folks: what
nutrients are missing from today's powerbars and multivitamin tablets?
Could these not be put in there, and thus we solve world hunger?



TC wrote:
>
>
> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>
> Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
> mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two nutrients
> in large amounts serves only to:
>
> 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and
> 2) leave the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it
> is used to getting from real food.
>
> It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a highly
> unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good thing.
>
> TC

David
September 20th 06, 04:05 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>
>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>> TC wrote:
>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>>>> >
>>>> > TC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>>>>
>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>>>> suffice, no?
>>>
>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>
>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>
> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
> what legs are four! ;o)

Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it will
obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it as
fore or four) My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
difficult to get around with 1000 legs. You couldn't really walk or run - it
would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6 legs
would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility


>

Charles
September 20th 06, 04:07 PM
On 20 Sep 2006 07:55:37 -0700, "TC" > wrote:

>
>David wrote:
>> "TC" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >> TC wrote:
>> >> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>> >> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>> >> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >> >
>> >> > TC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>> >> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> >> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>> >>
>> >> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>> >> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>> >> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>> >> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> >> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> >> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>> >> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> >> suffice, no?
>> >
>> > The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>> > legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>> > table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> > remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>> > needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>> > that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>> > a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>> > of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>
>> the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>
>But many have three or six.
>

Two four-legged tables pushed together for the purpose of being used
at a buffet, collectively have eight legs.

However, seven Armed Forces veterans using crutches, who met up with
Heather Mills McCartney, also had only eight legs between them!

This discussion about legs could run and run...

NYC XYZ
September 20th 06, 04:07 PM
Bully wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> > The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?
> >
> > Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
> > just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?
>
> Price!


LOL! I didn't think of that -- but probably because it seems an
all-in-one is cheaper than separate things? I mean, for the consumer,
it's cheaper and more convenient to get it all at once in one tub, than
pay for separate containers, right?

David
September 20th 06, 04:09 PM
"TC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> David wrote:
>> "TC" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >> TC wrote:
>> >> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>> >> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete
>> >> > than
>> >> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >> >
>> >> > TC
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>> >> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> >> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>> >>
>> >> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>> >> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>> >> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't
>> >> folks
>> >> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> >> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> >> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim
>> >> on
>> >> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> >> suffice, no?
>> >
>> > The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>> > legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>> > table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> > remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>> > needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>> > that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>> > a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>> > of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>
>> the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>
> But many have three or six.

of course I knew that! but the fact remains that *most* tables have 4 legs
(I once saw a horse with 3 legs but he was not very stable)

>
>>
>> >
>> > Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
>> > mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two nutrients
>> > in large amounts serves only to:
>> >
>> > 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and
>> > 2) leave the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it
>> > is used to getting from real food.
>> >
>> > It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a highly
>> > unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good thing.
>> >
>> > TC
>> >
>

Charles
September 20th 06, 04:12 PM
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>>
>>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > TC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>>>>> suffice, no?
>>>>
>>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>>
>>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>>
>> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
>> what legs are four! ;o)
>
>Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it will
>obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it as
>fore or four)

As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!

>My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
>difficult to get around with 1000 legs.

Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
on Chinese New Year.

>You couldn't really walk or run - it
>would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6 legs
>would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility

I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
leg'? ;o)

David
September 20th 06, 04:23 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>>>> TC wrote:
>>>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best
>>>>>> > form
>>>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete
>>>>>> > than
>>>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > TC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>>>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>>>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>>>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't
>>>>>> folks
>>>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>>>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>>>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>>>>>> suffice, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>>>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>>>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>>>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only.
>>>>> It
>>>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>>>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>>>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>>>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>>>
>>>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>>>
>>> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
>>> what legs are four! ;o)
>>
>>Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it will
>>obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it
>>as
>>fore or four)
>
> As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!
>
>>My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
>>difficult to get around with 1000 legs.
>
> Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
> on Chinese New Year.

Of course - but please Charles, dragons are NOT tables - there is no
relation between the two! (Multi legged tables would also probably do very
well on Chinese New Year)


>>You couldn't really walk or run - it
>>would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6
>>legs
>>would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility
>
> I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
> leg'? ;o)

Yes, a prickly situation at times

TC
September 20th 06, 04:43 PM
Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
health.

TC

Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"TC" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
> >>>>> TC wrote:
> >>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
> >>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
> >>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > TC
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
> >>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
> >>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
> >>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
> >>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
> >>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
> >>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
> >>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
> >>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
> >>>>> suffice, no?
> >>>>
> >>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
> >>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
> >>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
> >>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
> >>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
> >>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
> >>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
> >>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
> >>>
> >>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
> >>
> >> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
> >> what legs are four! ;o)
> >
> >Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it will
> >obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it as
> >fore or four)
>
> As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!
>
> >My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
> >difficult to get around with 1000 legs.
>
> Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
> on Chinese New Year.
>
> >You couldn't really walk or run - it
> >would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6 legs
> >would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility
>
> I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
> leg'? ;o)

David
September 20th 06, 04:48 PM
"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
> health.

TC, you would have noticed I'm sure that this Charles guy is the instigator.
Many times I try to be serious about a subject but he just makes light of it
all and causes a general disruption in this group. We can only hope that he
will cross over to your group where everyone is serious

>
> TC
>
> Charles wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"TC" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >>>>> TC wrote:
>> >>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best
>> >>>>> > form
>> >>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete
>> >>>>> > than
>> >>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > TC
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> >>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims
>> >>>>> you
>> >>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't
>> >>>>> folks
>> >>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> >>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> >>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the
>> >>>>> claim on
>> >>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> >>>>> suffice, no?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with
>> >>>> three
>> >>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> >>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only.
>> >>>> It
>> >>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only
>> >>>> get
>> >>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an
>> >>>> excess
>> >>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>> >>>
>> >>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>> >>
>> >> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
>> >> what legs are four! ;o)
>> >
>> >Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it
>> >will
>> >obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it
>> >as
>> >fore or four)
>>
>> As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!
>>
>> >My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
>> >difficult to get around with 1000 legs.
>>
>> Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
>> on Chinese New Year.
>>
>> >You couldn't really walk or run - it
>> >would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6
>> >legs
>> >would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility
>>
>> I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
>> leg'? ;o)
>

David
September 20th 06, 04:48 PM
"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
> health.
>
> TC
>
> Charles wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"TC" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >>>>> TC wrote:
>> >>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best
>> >>>>> > form
>> >>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete
>> >>>>> > than
>> >>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > TC
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> >>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims
>> >>>>> you
>> >>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't
>> >>>>> folks
>> >>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> >>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> >>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the
>> >>>>> claim on
>> >>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> >>>>> suffice, no?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with
>> >>>> three
>> >>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> >>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only.
>> >>>> It
>> >>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only
>> >>>> get
>> >>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an
>> >>>> excess
>> >>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>> >>>
>> >>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>> >>
>> >> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
>> >> what legs are four! ;o)
>> >
>> >Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it
>> >will
>> >obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it
>> >as
>> >fore or four)
>>
>> As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!
>>
>> >My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
>> >difficult to get around with 1000 legs.
>>
>> Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
>> on Chinese New Year.
>>
>> >You couldn't really walk or run - it
>> >would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6
>> >legs
>> >would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility
>>
>> I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
>> leg'? ;o)
>

Charles
September 20th 06, 05:09 PM
On 20 Sep 2006 08:43:41 -0700, "TC" > wrote:
>
>Charles wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:05:19 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:35:18 +1000, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"TC" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> >>>>> TC wrote:
>> >>>>> > Why not just eat meat, fish, eggs, etc. All in one. In the best form
>> >>>>> > possible. With no processing. More healthy, natural and complete than
>> >>>>> > any powder in a plastic jug.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > TC
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I do, but it's not so easy sometimes -- for example, if I'm going to
>> >>>>> bother chewing and chewing on the stuff, I want it to taste good!
>> >>>>> Whereas a protein shake goes down inside a New York Minute. =)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I wonder about the "more healthy" -- and "more complete" -- claims you
>> >>>>> make...indeed, I've always wondered why, if these protein shakes and
>> >>>>> multi-vitamin tablets really are the "real deal," well, why can't folks
>> >>>>> just ingest them only and still be healthy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Has anyone ever done such an experiment, feeding folks only protein
>> >>>>> supplements and multi-vitamin pills? (Oh yes, and water, too, of
>> >>>>> course!) I mean, if it's really food and nutrients, as is the claim on
>> >>>>> paper (as per their nutritional information labels), they should
>> >>>>> suffice, no?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with three
>> >>>> legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls over. Imagine a
>> >>>> table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs out and it easily
>> >>>> remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a few nutrients only. It
>> >>>> needs copious amounts of a large variety of nutrients. We can only get
>> >>>> that from real food. Fresh food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of
>> >>>> a single nutrient only provides the body with that nutrient, an excess
>> >>>> of that nutrient and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>> >>>
>> >>>the flaw in your argument is that most tables have 4 legs.
>> >>
>> >> Most animals have fore legs too and are self-standing, but then that's
>> >> what legs are four! ;o)
>> >
>> >Yes Charles and very observant! (just a tip if you use the numeral it will
>> >obviate the necessity to check the dictionary as to whether you spell it as
>> >fore or four)
>>
>> As ever, I am indebted to you M'Lord!
>>
>> >My only problem with this analogy is that it is would very
>> >difficult to get around with 1000 legs.
>>
>> Most dragons of varying leg composition, appear to do remarkably well
>> on Chinese New Year.
>>
>> >You couldn't really walk or run - it
>> >would have to more like a shuffle I would think. Probably 4 or maybe 6 legs
>> >would be optimum. (of course I'm not an expert in multi legged mobility
>>
>> I thought you were somewhat handicapped by your rather large 'middle
>> leg'? ;o)

>Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
>health.

I found that constantly bringing up my food intake was quite
sickening!

As for my health, no matter how seriously I take that or how healthy I
am, it is a constant source of irritation and not a little
consternation, that I am going to eventually die anyway!

I have no intention of continuing in this frivolous manner in case I
cause you irritation of the stomach lining TC.

If I tell you that this David person, to whom you would have me linked
in some way, is Australian, would that be sufficient explanation for
his bizarre conduct?

Be well TC and eat with care lest you get carried away! ;o)

Charles
September 20th 06, 05:13 PM
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:48:23 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"TC" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
>> health.
>
>TC, you would have noticed I'm sure that this Charles guy is the instigator.
>Many times I try to be serious about a subject but he just makes light of it
>all and causes a general disruption in this group. We can only hope that he
>will cross over to your group where everyone is serious
>

I have no intention of being drawn into one of your silly interminable
David/Charles threads.

If you are not very careful mate, you will leave me no alternative but
to threaten to allegedly "killfile" you!

(We haven't seen that for a long while, have we?)

Bully
September 20th 06, 06:41 PM
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> The reason escapes me, so I must ask: why not an all-in-one?
>>>
>>> Why the separate creatine, whatever-whatever, etc.-etc., instead of
>>> just puttin' 'em all in one big tub of mix?
>>
>> Price!
>
>
> LOL! I didn't think of that -- but probably because it seems an
> all-in-one is cheaper than separate things? I mean, for the consumer,
> it's cheaper

No.

> and more convenient

Yes.

> to get it all at once in one tub,
> than pay for separate containers, right?



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Jason Earl
September 20th 06, 09:13 PM
DZ > writes:

> TC > wrote:
>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with
>> three legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls
>> over. Imagine a table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs
>> out and it easily remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a
>> few nutrients only. It needs copious amounts of a large variety of
>> nutrients. We can only get that from real food. Fresh
>> food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of a single nutrient only
>> provides the body with that nutrient, an excess of that nutrient
>> and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>
>> Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
>> mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two
>> nutrients in large amounts serves only to:
>>
>> 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and 2) leave
>> the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it is
>> used to getting from real food.
>>
>> It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a
>> highly unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good
>> thing.
>
> To show that the argument "natural = healthy" is incorrect in
> general, it would be sufficient to find a single species where
> altering its natural diet would substantially increase longevity. At
> this point, I don't see why I should even bother.

Please continue to bother.

> As ensured by natural selection, natural diets are optimal for
> fitness - considered as reproductive success in population-genetic
> sense, not in misc.fitness.weights sense :-) Even calorie
> restriction in animals results in decreased fitness, but in
> increased health.

Most people forget that evolution selects for reproductive success,
not for athletic prowess or longevity. As an example, one of my
ancestors was a Mormon pioneer during the brief period where the
church allowed (and encouraged) polygamy. He fathered over fifty
children that survived to adulthood, most of which also went on to
have large Mormon families. In terms of currently living progeny he
is probably one of the most successful males of his generation with a
truly ridiculous number of descendants.

Of course, he also happened to be just over 5' tall and he weighed
around 100 pounds. He also was born with a club foot, and only lived
to be 43 or so. You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel like
following his diet to the letter.

> If we strive to maximize the number of offspring we leave by 30
> years of age, the natural diet is a sure way to go. Otherwise, it
> might be a reasonable diet, but there is no guarantee, or reason
> that we shouldn't be able to do better. Just a reminder that to pass
> on the entire genome with high probability one would have to have at
> least 20 children.

I'd better get cracking. I've only got three children.

Jason

David
September 20th 06, 10:30 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
.. .
> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>> chewing and chewing
>
> Hi, NYC XYZ!
>
> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).

Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?

>
> DZ
> (季 季)

JMW
September 20th 06, 11:55 PM
"TC" > wrote:

>Interesting to see how seriously you guys take your diets and your
>health.

Actually, we're just making fun of you. Most of us have a
significantly better understanding of nutrition than the simplistic
platitudes you have been spewing.

JMW
September 20th 06, 11:59 PM
DZ > wrote:

>NYC XYZ > wrote:
>> chewing and chewing
>
>Hi, NYC XYZ!
>
>Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
>name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
>last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
>Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
>I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).

We thought you were a Juju.

Patricia Heil
September 21st 06, 12:16 AM
"Jason Earl" > wrote in message
...
> DZ > writes:
>
>> TC > wrote:
>>> The concept of complexity is relevant here. Imagine a table with
>>> three legs. You knock one leg out from under it and it falls
>>> over. Imagine a table with one thousand legs. Knock a dozen legs
>>> out and it easily remains standing. The body cannot thrive of of a
>>> few nutrients only. It needs copious amounts of a large variety of
>>> nutrients. We can only get that from real food. Fresh
>>> food. Nutrient dense food. Large amounts of a single nutrient only
>>> provides the body with that nutrient, an excess of that nutrient
>>> and a deficiency of other nutrients.
>>>
>>> Your body evolved to ingest a wide variety of nutrients in complex
>>> mixtures all at once (ie. real food). To feed it one or two
>>> nutrients in large amounts serves only to:
>>>
>>> 1) overload the system with those one or two nutrients and 2) leave
>>> the body depleted of the rest of the nutrient complex that it is
>>> used to getting from real food.
>>>
>>> It is not natural. You are placing your metabolic system into a
>>> highly unusual situation. I don't see how that could be a good
>>> thing.
>>
>> To show that the argument "natural = healthy" is incorrect in
>> general, it would be sufficient to find a single species where
>> altering its natural diet would substantially increase longevity. At
>> this point, I don't see why I should even bother.
>
> Please continue to bother.
>
>> As ensured by natural selection, natural diets are optimal for
>> fitness - considered as reproductive success in population-genetic
>> sense, not in misc.fitness.weights sense :-) Even calorie
>> restriction in animals results in decreased fitness, but in
>> increased health.
>
> Most people forget that evolution selects for reproductive success,
> not for athletic prowess or longevity. As an example, one of my
> ancestors was a Mormon pioneer during the brief period where the
> church allowed (and encouraged) polygamy. He fathered over fifty
> children that survived to adulthood, most of which also went on to
> have large Mormon families. In terms of currently living progeny he
> is probably one of the most successful males of his generation with a
> truly ridiculous number of descendants.
>
> Of course, he also happened to be just over 5' tall and he weighed
> around 100 pounds. He also was born with a club foot, and only lived
> to be 43 or so. You'll have to excuse me if I don't feel like
> following his diet to the letter.
>
>> If we strive to maximize the number of offspring we leave by 30
>> years of age, the natural diet is a sure way to go. Otherwise, it
>> might be a reasonable diet, but there is no guarantee, or reason
>> that we shouldn't be able to do better. Just a reminder that to pass
>> on the entire genome with high probability one would have to have at
>> least 20 children.
>
> I'd better get cracking. I've only got three children.
>
> Jason

Selection hasn't been operating on humans for centuries now, even less now
than ever given the diabetes epidemic. Culture insulates humans from most
selective pressures.

mike
September 21st 06, 05:46 AM
"David" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "DZ" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > NYC XYZ > wrote:
> >> chewing and chewing
> >
> > Hi, NYC XYZ!
> >
> > Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
> > name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
> > last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
> > Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
> > I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
>
> Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>
Or Poo Poo?

mike
September 21st 06, 05:47 AM
"DZ" > wrote in message
.. .
> David > wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
> >>> chewing and chewing
> >>
> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
> >>
> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
> >
> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>
> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
> nightclub in Brisbane.
>
Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????

David
September 21st 06, 08:49 AM
"DZ" > wrote in message
.. .
> David > wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>>>> chewing and chewing
>>>
>>> Hi, NYC XYZ!
>>>
>>> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
>>> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
>>> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
>>> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
>>> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
>>
>> Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>
> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
> nightclub in Brisbane.

OK, . . .now I'm beginning to understand . . .
>
> 季 季

David
September 21st 06, 08:50 AM
"mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> "DZ" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> David > wrote:
>> > DZ wrote:
>> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>> >>> chewing and chewing
>> >>
>> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
>> >>
>> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your first
>> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
>> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
>> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong Xi"
>> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
>> >
>> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>>
>> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
>> nightclub in Brisbane.
>>
> Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
> Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????
>

You were busy with that hooker, Mike - don't you remember??

mike
September 21st 06, 03:30 PM
"David" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "DZ" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> David > wrote:
> >> > DZ wrote:
> >> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
> >> >>> chewing and chewing
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your
first
> >> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
> >> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
> >> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong
Xi"
> >> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
> >>
> >> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
> >> nightclub in Brisbane.
> >>
> > Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
> > Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????
> >
>
> You were busy with that hooker, Mike - don't you remember??
>

I remember David but I'd have shared her, really, as I am a considerate
fella.

David
September 21st 06, 05:59 PM
"mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> u...
>>
>> "mike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "DZ" > wrote in message
>> > .. .
>> >> David > wrote:
>> >> > DZ wrote:
>> >> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>> >> >>> chewing and chewing
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your
> first
>> >> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
>> >> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
>> >> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong
> Xi"
>> >> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>> >>
>> >> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
>> >> nightclub in Brisbane.
>> >>
>> > Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
>> > Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????
>> >
>>
>> You were busy with that hooker, Mike - don't you remember??
>>
>
> I remember David but I'd have shared her, really, as I am a considerate
> fella.
lol!

David
September 21st 06, 06:50 PM
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> mike > wrote:
>> "David" > wrote:
>>>"mike" > wrote in message
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>> David > wrote:
>>>>> > DZ wrote:
>>>>> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
>>>>> >>> chewing and chewing
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your
>>>>> >> first
>>>>> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
>>>>> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
>>>>> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong
>>>>> >> Xi"
>>>>> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
>>>>> nightclub in Brisbane.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
>>>> Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????
>>>>
>>>
>>> You were busy with that hooker, Mike - don't you remember??
>>
>> I remember David but I'd have shared her, really, as I am a considerate
>> fella.
>
> But Mike, if you'd like to get REALLY technical, it wasn't exactly "her".

NOW you tell me!

mike
September 22nd 06, 12:00 AM
"DZ" > wrote in message
...
> mike > wrote:
> > "David" > wrote:
> >>"mike" > wrote in message
> >>> DZ wrote:
> >>>> David > wrote:
> >>>> > DZ wrote:
> >>>> >> NYC XYZ > wrote:
> >>>> >>> chewing and chewing
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Hi, NYC XYZ!
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Are you Chinese? You see, your last name (XYZ) rhymes with your
first
> >>>> >> name (NYC), and you say everything twice! I discovered these rules
> >>>> >> last year when my dear female friend Zhu-Zhu sent me a Chinese New
> >>>> >> Year greeting card that said in Chinese characters: "Gong Xi Gong
Xi"
> >>>> >> I am 100% Chinese myself (born and raised in Inner Mongolia).
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Are you sure that your dear friend is not Shue Shue?
> >>>>
> >>>> Shue Shue is my "karaoke friend". Remember, three of us went to a
> >>>> nightclub in Brisbane.
> >>>>
> >>> Ok...spill the beans. When did you and David hit the nightclubs in
> >>> Brisbane.? What happened to my invite??????
> >>>
> >>
> >> You were busy with that hooker, Mike - don't you remember??
> >
> > I remember David but I'd have shared her, really, as I am a considerate
> > fella.
>
> But Mike, if you'd like to get REALLY technical, it wasn't exactly "her".

Don't let the cat (or pussy) out of the bag DZ - please. Thats the reason I
WAS prepared to share "her" and not "have her" myself. Geez