jonnythan Member

I haven't been able to generate any of these yet, and I hope it stays that way. The alternative is unacceptable.

A sneaker is significantly better protection against dropped weights than nothing at all. And on top of that, shoes protect against stubbed toes. I know I've accidentally run my foot into several things while wearing shoes that could have resulted in broken toes had I not been wearing anything.

Your results have been rejected for the following reason: Experimental design does not match stated project. Suggested revision: Change project statement to accurately reflect the experiment performed. Example: "Post a condescending comment directly criticizing the behavior of others and instruct them on how to act…

"Publicly complain about people and tell them what to do" is OP's version of "move on and don't get hostile."

I just looked through about 3 years worth of Facebook pictures of this friend. He has jeans on in every single one of them. They're underneath coveralls, cave suits, or drysuits in some of them. But they're there.

He defended it in jeans. No joke.

One of my friends wears jeans doing everything. Dude's a PhD. Skiing, snowmobiling, kayaking, biking, caving, climbing. Doesn't matter. When it's above 100 you might see him in jean shorts. Other than that, it's always jeans. And you know what? He's probably better than you at absolutely everything. He's amazing.

Sorry, it's not really my thing to leave false information and terrible advice just sitting there unchallenged.

The fact that I asked for literature, and you produced links to a pair of blog entries by diet book authors says a lot. BTW, the second link's recommendations specifically state "Your total cholesterol should be under 200."

You should be aware that Mercola is a well-known quack. Simply bringing up Mercola on MFP generally causes a lot of laughter and eye rolling.

I read the whole sentence. Could you please produce some literature and data to support that statement?

Here is your statement: "High cholesterol levels in itself are not bad" Here is my question: "Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem?" I'm honestly not sure what words I've added. Feel free to modify the question as you see fit. I would…

Cool. So, I was serious. Do you have any quality literature that is convincing establishing that high total cholesterol is definitely not a problem? This entire conversation started because you said high cholesterol wasn't itself a problem. I'm interested if you have any data to support that. If you do, please share it.

I'm saying that high serum cholesterol is a risk factor for disease and is indeed bad. I have said nothing about unoxidised LDL particles, nor will I say anything on the topic in this thread.

Supplements are not the way to get over a "plateau." In pretty much all cases, people plateau (assuming it's a 'real' plateau and not "my weight hasn't changed much in two weeks) because of errors in calorie intake. They are going to the gym less but eating just as much, they're having more cheat days, they've gotten lazy…

Saying you would have trouble supporting a statement wasn't an invitation to ask me questions about other topics. There is some merit to the idea that total serum cholesterol itself isn't a very good predictor of heart disease, and that cholesterol ratios matter significantly more. However, total cholesterol is still a…

I've been busy the past few days, sorry. I don't know the details of the research methodolgy or analysis, but it seems safe to me to assume that "but that land can't be used for farming anyway" has been considered. I invite you to explore the question on your own, as it is a good one. Of course, besides land use there's…

I said you would have serious trouble supporting the assertion that high cholesterol is not bad.

I believe you read a number of things in my post that weren't there.

I think you would have serious trouble supporting this assertion.

Holy lord. BTW, it's pretty much impossible to eat 700 calories a day and not lose weight. There's no such thing as eating so little you stop losing weight. People who think they're eating 700 a day and not losing weight are just.. wrong.

I have a lot of vegetarian friends, and study public health. Believe me, this comes up a lot :laugh:

It's well-documented and commonly known. It also makes intuitive sense. If a cow by the time it's slaughtered at 3 years old produces (making up a number here) 100,000 calories worth of food.... how many calories worth of vegetation do you think it consumed to get to that point?…

It's illegal to give chickens antibiotics routinely. It is legal to give them antibiotics if they are sick, provided they are given a certain amount of time off antibiotics before being slaughtered. I dunno about any lawsuits regarding the practice. Also, hormones are strictly prohibited for poultry and swine.

Uh....... no. It takes a LOT of calories of vegetation to produce 1 calorie of beef. The animal feed -> animal tissue conversion rate is rather low. In terms of land use, animal farming requires significantly more land (and water and energy) to produce a given quantity of calories, fat, protein, or carbs.

1) Hunger often has little to do with biological need. 2) The goal of weight loss is to deliberately not give the body enough calories to maintain itself, forcing it to break down its own body tissue to make up the difference.

Either that, or they've actually been there and accomplished what you are trying to accomplish, have helped dozens of other people accomplish what you are trying to accomplish, and have actually learned a thing or two about how to be successful. Or what you said. One or the other. Who knows.

BTW, fat free dairy is the worst thing ever. Fat is delicious and eating fat will not prevent you from getting abs.

When they say "it's what you eat" they don't mean you need to eat certain foods. They mean that you need to eat at a calorie deficit to lose body fat.

Please use the quote button so we can see who you're belittling.