Clean vs. Junk - does it really matter?
Replies
-
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.0 -
Lol who is in a hypercaloric state?
im not
I am, on purpose...better start eating more of dat der sucrose, or was it frustose... I get confused.
well i meant on a sustained hypercaloric state like forever0 -
Lol who is in a hypercaloric state?
im not
I am, on purpose...better start eating more of dat der sucrose, or was it frustose... I get confused.
well i meant on a sustained hypercaloric state like forever
I know...I was teasing, :happy:0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
People seem to think that the FDA does all the research in the world and is the 'face' of big pharma for some reason.
they are inextricably linked... the FDA is what allows drugs to be put on the market for mass human testing...
also what IS this thread?? haha
See bold.
Also...not all research is about drugs.
Most research isn't about drugs. My entire research career was non-drug related. Drug research is highly visible but it's the pimple on butt of the walrus on the tip of the iceberg.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Sorry dude, I appreciate that your perspective may be skewed because of your career, but the FDA is a joke when it comes to protecting the people from bad drugs, and telling us what foods we should be eating. Monsanto is pretty much the only word I need to mention on that front.
We can argue about it after the roll though. Tablet typing is no fun.0 -
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Yes, that (1906) and, while on muckraking a century ago, How the Other Half Lives (1890).
I'm reminded of Gary Taubes' story about a young German physician, Hilde Bruch who "arrived in New York in 1934 and was "startled" by the number of fat kids she saw—"really fat ones, not only in clinics, but on the streets and subways, and in schools."
What makes Bruch’s story relevant to the obesity problem today is that this was New York in the worst year of the Great Depression, an era of bread lines and soup kitchens, when 6 in 10 Americans were living in poverty."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/06/why-the-campaign-to-stop-america-s-obesity-crisis-keeps-failing.html0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Sorry dude, I appreciate that your perspective may be skewed because of your career, but the FDA is a joke when it comes to protecting the people from bad drugs, and telling us what foods we should be eating. Monsanto is pretty much the only word I need to mention on that front.
We can argue about it after the roll though. Tablet typing is no fun.
Monsanto makes drugs? #thethingsyoulearnfromcoachreddy
Let me just be clear - for drug companies the FDA is often the enemy.
According to you all drugs are bad, all Pharma is bad and all the FDA is bad.
I've seen your insidious posts on the industry.
I'm on a tablet too - in any case, I'm not going to spend my time defending either Pharma or the FDA - each have issues.
However, I'm quite happy with a career that has included seeing such things as the evolution of AIDS from a disease that kills 90% plus to a disease that can be completely managed as well as the Mectizan Donation program.
If the FDA was not in place - the drug industry would be like the unregulated health and fitness industry - full of charlatan PTs and flimflam products.0 -
wow lots of quotes0
-
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Sorry dude, I appreciate that your perspective may be skewed because of your career, but the FDA is a joke when it comes to protecting the people from bad drugs, and telling us what foods we should be eating. Monsanto is pretty much the only word I need to mention on that front.
We can argue about it after the roll though. Tablet typing is no fun.
Monsanto makes drugs? #thethingsyoulearnfromcoachreddy
Let me just be clear - for drug companies the FDA is often the enemy.
According to you all drugs are bad, all Pharma is bad and all the FDA is bad.
I've seen your insidious posts on the industry.
I'm on a tablet too - in any case, I'm not going to spend my time defending either Pharma or the FDA - each have issues.
However, I'm quite happy with a career that has included seeing such things as the evolution of AIDS from a disease that kills 90% plus to a disease that can be completely managed as well as the Mectizan Donation program.
If the FDA was not in place - the drug industry would be like the unregulated health and fitness industry - full of charlatan PTs and flimflam products.
We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Sorry dude, I appreciate that your perspective may be skewed because of your career, but the FDA is a joke when it comes to protecting the people from bad drugs, and telling us what foods we should be eating. Monsanto is pretty much the only word I need to mention on that front.
We can argue about it after the roll though. Tablet typing is no fun.
Monsanto makes drugs? #thethingsyoulearnfromcoachreddy
Let me just be clear - for drug companies the FDA is often the enemy.
According to you all drugs are bad, all Pharma is bad and all the FDA is bad.
I've seen your insidious posts on the industry.
I'm on a tablet too - in any case, I'm not going to spend my time defending either Pharma or the FDA - each have issues.
However, I'm quite happy with a career that has included seeing such things as the evolution of AIDS from a disease that kills 90% plus to a disease that can be completely managed as well as the Mectizan Donation program.
If the FDA was not in place - the drug industry would be like the unregulated health and fitness industry - full of charlatan PTs and flimflam products.
We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.
Nevermind. Not worth it.0 -
Eating processed foods and unnatural chemicals is fattening-starvation. Your body cannot process the foods but there are no nutrients in what you're eating that it needs to survive, so it takes and stores whatever it can from the crap you eat, and then fights like crazy to get rid of what it can't use or even digest. Do yourself a favor and clean it up! Eat food that's actually food, not the chemical crap the Fed is trying to pass for food these days.
Next time you go to reach for a processed treat or something in the drive-thru, just take off your shoe and eat that instead. It'll be about the same nutritionally and will save you money.
Lol, quoted for the cray and "the Fed" - what does the American Monetary Reserve have to do with donuts?
Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently I need to be more descriptive. "The Fed" can also describe the FDA, which is the FEDERALLY RUN ADMINISTRATION implementing laws and criteria regarding the safe growing, selling and eating of food items under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It's been my experience that "the Fed" is useful in describing circumstances involving "The Federal Government."
Anyway....
In all seriousness, it makes more sense to use the term "the feds" in that situation. "The fed" specifically means the Federal Reserve.
It's like DOE. Technically it could be Department of Education, but it's used exclusively for the Department of Energy. The Department of Education is typically called the ED.
Thanks for the lesson in Terminology. I found it to be both relevant and necessary to the topic of this thread. Also, thanks for calling me out on it. I was unaware that MFP threads counted as legal documents that require proper language before submittal. From now on I'll be sure to draft each one and error check before posting.
Man, people really don't like to learn they did something wrong, do they? Good lord.
I appreciate when people politely correct me when I make a mistake.
Kind of off topic, but are you aware how corrupt the FDA is in the US? It's shocking, I had to do a research product on this in class (I'm from Australia) and seems the FDA gets all its funding from the pic pharma companies. Don't trust everything they put out there guys...
Did you get an F? The FDA gets less than half of its funding from user fees. It's a fee per application basis not random interest funding. /smh
meow, calm down and have a flower to cheer up :flowerforyou:
Luckily I got a D. And in Australia D isn't bad it means I got about 80% actually (Distinction) so bite me.
I was simply mentioning something far in the vaults of my memories. If you really want to argue PM me and I'll happily dig up the assignment for you, but I don't see the need. This is silly.
Fair enough, I edited my post. :flowerforyou: back to you.
But having worked on direct filings with the FDA it's pretty insulting to hear these "all corrupt" nonsense insults. There are issues, but it is a damn good structure.
Suggest you read The Jungle. Good book.
Sorry dude, I appreciate that your perspective may be skewed because of your career, but the FDA is a joke when it comes to protecting the people from bad drugs, and telling us what foods we should be eating. Monsanto is pretty much the only word I need to mention on that front.
We can argue about it after the roll though. Tablet typing is no fun.
Monsanto makes drugs? #thethingsyoulearnfromcoachreddy
Let me just be clear - for drug companies the FDA is often the enemy.
According to you all drugs are bad, all Pharma is bad and all the FDA is bad.
I've seen your insidious posts on the industry.
I'm on a tablet too - in any case, I'm not going to spend my time defending either Pharma or the FDA - each have issues.
However, I'm quite happy with a career that has included seeing such things as the evolution of AIDS from a disease that kills 90% plus to a disease that can be completely managed as well as the Mectizan Donation program.
If the FDA was not in place - the drug industry would be like the unregulated health and fitness industry - full of charlatan PTs and flimflam products.
We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.
Nevermind. Not worth it.
LOL0 -
lol... wow...We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.0 -
I know two women who are almost the same weight (78 kgs) but one of them lives on a high-carb diet and looks close to 95 kgs despite what the scale says. The other, who eats clean, looks lighter than her 78 kgs. For me that's live proof on how our diet shapes our body even if one is watching their calorie intake.0
-
I know two women who are almost the same weight (78 kgs) but one of them lives on a high-carb diet and looks close to 95 kgs despite what the scale says. The other, who eats clean, looks lighter than her 78 kgs. For me that's live proof on how our diet shapes our body even if one is watching their calorie intake.
That is called a difference in muscle mass - and has nothing to do with eating clean.0 -
We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.
Wow, just wow.0 -
noI know two women who are almost the same weight (78 kgs) but one of them lives on a high-carb diet and looks close to 95 kgs despite what the scale says. The other, who eats clean, looks lighter than her 78 kgs. For me that's live proof on how our diet shapes our body even if one is watching their calorie intake.
i dont watch my caloric intake and I can push up higher numbers than most guys in the gym and even on other numbers not many people can push up the same as me if they are bigger than me
i have a mix between healthy and junk food. i just ate half a box of sweet tarts today0 -
We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails.
Wow, just wow.
Coach, you've out meme'd yourself.
0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.0 -
You're kidding, right?
The vast majority of HIV/AIDs research (at least in the US) is not done in big pharma but in independently funded academic labs. Big pharma has zero to do with the success or failure of that research. And if you think they have the resources and better minds and therefore do more or better research, you're mistaken. Big pharma is in big trouble, financially, and has been gradually shutting down research facilities and laying off top researchers for years. Plus, they don't make all that much off of HIV treatment anyway, though at this point every $ counts. They sell much more ($-wise) of drugs like Nexium and Abilify. I don't think AIDS treatments even make the top 100 drug sales list for 2012.
But you're right, this is way off topic.0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.0 -
Another remarkable display of the Dunning–Kruger effect by our coach again I see. Amazing...0
-
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.
you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol
you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.
also, this doesn't seem promising?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.
also, this doesn't seem promising?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html
You post that Big Pharma doesn't want an AIDS cure and then torpedo your own argument by posting a link to an article about a study involving Big Pharma products that appear to (at least preliminarily) cure AIDS. Interesting approach. :laugh:0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.
also, this doesn't seem promising?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html
That supports what I first wrote about the evolution of AIDS treatment. What is your point?you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol
you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.
No, I have never stated it is largely altruistic - that would be incorrect. It is a business, where one of the priorities is making money, but since a variety of checks and balances exist, being first to market in a competitive environment, etc. are all forces that contradict the idea of some sort of conspiracy to keep cures off the market as you seem to believe.
The idea that you believe that any/all/most businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices (which by the way would negatively impact the said "bottom-line") says more about your world view than anything else. You make money in whatever job you are holding, do you consider stealing from your employer or other behaviour acceptable?
You stated that "HIV is a multi-million dollar industry that is keeping people [in the industry] rich" This is indeed a lie. AIDS is horrid disease - not an industry, no one is manufacturing AIDS and I guarantee that the lab from the researcher to top exec that finds a cure (given the novel paths it wll take to do so) will be much richer than any current treatment option - the current daily cost of to a patient of the major drugs is less than 75 cents.
And yes, it is an industry that allows for a lot of altruism but it is a for profit industry. I would love to see it as a non-profit or a mixed organization (as is done in certain countries for orphan drugs) but the truth is that in the absence of the profit motivation novel drug development fails.0 -
In...
...to learn more about...
:reads page 20 of pre-rolled thread:
LOLWUT?
haha right? i jumped the shark.
I'll admit it was probably a bit unnecessarily inflammatory, but the reasoning behind it is simple. HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc, are a multi-billion dollar industry that keep a lot of people extremely rich. I'm not saying people haven't been working on finding cures, but the incentive to find a cure isn't as high as finding drugs that people have to take for life to "control" a disease.
However, this is horribly off topic.
Simple reasoning is often wrong. You lie.
While companies do make more money on heart disease drugs, etc. HIV has not gone underfunded nor has research been deprioritzed to other diseases. By my own calculation (about 7 years ago) funding per patient over 10 years for AIDS versus diabetes was 170 to 1 in favor of AIDS.
As to cures, there has been extensive research to find an AIDS vaccine for over 20 years. Over a dozen vaccine candidates have reached Phase I, II or III. Which means that the industry has looked at 3000 to 5000 potential candidate for cures. In the early days of development of treatment - the development of CRIXIVAN included over 3000 candidate molecule treatments. There are currently no vaccine candidates that I know of that look promising, each one fails out at some phase and the drug companies take huge financial hits to scrape projects but continue - the company that succeeds in developing a vaccine will have a huge new technology leap - however over a billion dollars is spent each year on HIV vaccine research alone.
As to cancer, HPV vaccine is a vaccine of sorts for specific types of cancer. It is commercially available. Others are in the pipelines.
BTW, AIDS drugs are to a large extent generic today.
also, this doesn't seem promising?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-functionally-cure-_n_2884201.html
That supports what I first wrote about the evolution of AIDS treatment. What is your point?you guys love throwing the "lie" word around. an opinion isn't truth or lie, it's an opinion... lol
you believe the industry is largely altruistic, and i believe that it's a business like any other where the number one priority is the bottom line. however reality is probably that it's a mixture of both.
No, I have never stated it is largely altruistic - that would be incorrect. It is a business, where one of the priorities is making money, but since a variety of checks and balances exist, being first to market in a competitive environment, etc. are all forces that contradict the idea of some sort of conspiracy to keep cures off the market as you seem to believe.
The idea that you believe that any/all/most businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices (which by the way would negatively impact the said "bottom-line") says more about your world view than anything else. You make money in whatever job you are holding, do you consider stealing from your employer or other behaviour acceptable?
You stated that "HIV is a multi-million dollar industry that is keeping people [in the industry] rich" This is indeed a lie. AIDS is horrid disease - not an industry, no one is manufacturing AIDS and I guarantee that the lab from the researcher to top exec that finds a cure (given the novel paths it wll take to do so) will be much richer than any current treatment option - the current daily cost of to a patient of the major drugs is less than 75 cents.
And yes, it is an industry that allows for a lot of altruism but it is a for profit industry. I would love to see it as a non-profit or a mixed organization (as is done in certain countries for orphan drugs) but the truth is that in the absence of the profit motivation novel drug development fails.
you're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth.
1) I never said, and nor do I feel, that " businesses are about illegal, unethical and unprofessional practices". I simply believe that when we begin to talk about people who are making millions every year at the top of the food chain of major corporations, that ethics do begin to take a back seat to the bottom line. For example - Major League Baseball owners recently just voted to do away with pensions for their staff. Jerry Reinsdorf, the owner of the White Sox, was the only one to vote against it, claiming that it's unethical for men making tens of millions yearly to tell their employees they don't deserve a pension after dedicating their career to the organizations.
Why do you feel it's any different in the pharmaceutical industry?
2) I said HIV/AIDS/Cancer/etc is a multi-billion dollar industry - not HIV alone. The disease treatment industry as a whole is to what I was referring.
3) HIV costing $ 0.75 a day?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/07/27/157499134/cost-of-treatment-still-a-challenge-for-hiv-patients-in-u-sBut the pills for HIV that he's taken daily since then have come with a hefty price tag. Monthly HIV treatment regimens range from $2,000 to $5,000 — much of it for drugs.
yeah...... it's not all unicorns and rainbows quite yet.0 -
You wrote "We would have cured AIDS years ago if not for big pharma that makes a MINT off all those drug cocktails."
Rather than "put words into your mouth" feel free to explain 1) how big Pharma has prevented the curing of AIDS 2) in a manner that is not illegal, unethical and unprofessional.
I'm all ears.0 -
And I apologize for the confusion on the treatment cost. I wrote that sentence poorly - what I meant to write is that the cost of certain pills is 75 cent per day - the Pharma specific costs are about 20$ per day total in te US and can readily be halved with the arrival of generics. (Annals of internal med. jan 2013)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions