Y2HH

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 12, 2012 -> 08:18 PM) My plan to start working out at 5 AM before work has gone surprisingly well, haven't had a major issue waking up. Now if I could just get rid of all the booze, I might actually lose a bit of weight. (a Polish wedding last night did not help) Just avoid beer more than anything else...there are plenty of booze alternatives to beer that have far less calories with the benefit of WAY more alcohol by size. Even light beers tend to be about 100 calories each, and for what, 3.2-5% alcohol? Great, now you have to drink 10 of them. Or, you can learn to drink harder alternatives, that while will be 100 calories, you only need to drink one.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 14, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) Jebus. I remember when my friend bought it at $90/share in March 2009. I bought it at 4$ a share in 1997.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Or is everyone just bulls***ting? I went to an art gallery last night with the girlfriend. She wanted to see some work by her favorite artist, Luke Chueh, and a new artist she has interest in, Juan Muniz. Oh boy, did I learn that I am not cut out for the fine arts world...apparently I was embarrassing her because I thought all the people there were bulls***ters and I thought the pricing on the art was outrageous as well as negotiable. These people were making all these ridiculously nonsensical bs comments about the artists "Ohhh, their personalities are sooo similar...they are both such fun guys...." BLAH BLAH BLAH, fork over your money... Anyways, I think this will be the last time I accompany her to the art gallery. It's mostly bulls*** (the newer/modern stuff, that is)...and here is proof. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49...-paintings.html ^^ LOL is all.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) I tried taking Hydroxycut before working out back in the day and I got sick from it. Waste of $$ Hydroxycut actually worked as intended, but that was because it contained Ephedrine (also known as ma huang), which was later banned by the FDA and the World Anti-Doping Agency for sale or use. After the ban, Hydroxycut removed that ingredient and continued to sell the product, and while I haven't done any research as to what they replaced the ephedrine with, it was probably high doses of caffeine. So it was as effective as drinking a bunch of coffee before working out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) But you presumably were asking customers to give you money to pay for whatever good or service you were providing. Why didn't you drop the price of your product and demand your employees take a pay cut? Seriously??? Are you asking him why he wasn't a terrible business man who lowered his profits for no reason when the market wasn't demanding it?? You're comparing apples and oranges in the WORST way I've ever seen right here...a private company living in the black versus a tax payer run system running in the red, and you're questioning why he didn't give them pay cuts and lower his prices? BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE NO f***ING SENSE TO DO SO. That's why. Whatever point you were attempting to make with this one fell flat. I have to believe you did this just to troll, because I know you are too smart to pose this question otherwise...and in that case, it worked... Troll.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 06:01 PM) Shack, y2hh, I understand what you guys are saying but for cutting some belly fat it does work. And my best advice for anyone is to figure out what is best for you. I eat a ton of protein but supplementing my diet with protein shakes has allowed me to add muscle while trimming down body fat. Also, shack your last line is the best motivator of all and has been my primary motivation since I've gone fitness crazy. Protein shakes do NOT make you lose body fat alone, especially that pesky fat around your stomach. What's making you lose body fat is the fact you're working out and burning calories combined with a lesser intake of fat and carbs. In this regard, yes, low fat/low carb protein shakes CAN help if they're replacing otherwise higher fat/carb content protein based meals. If these shakes are just being added on top of these meals, then no...they're not assisting in weight or fat loss, as you're consuming even more calories. The ONLY thing supplementing protein does is make sure you have enough protein to 1) build muscle and 2) rebuild broken down muscle tissues resulting from your workouts. If you quit taking protein shakes, you'd still shed just as much bodyfat so long as you didn't replace those missing shakes with high fat/carb meals. The questions is, would you add as much muscle? I'm not sure, I'd have to know your diet/eating habits. If you already eat a lot of lean meat, the answer would be no, as you'd probably be fine without the supplement so long as you weren't a pro body builder of immense size...however, if you're eating a lot of salads or other low protein meals, the shakes would be helping a lot, as this way you'd be supplementing the lack of protein in your meals. To be clear, protein supplements work, they're one of the few dietary supplements that have been proven to do so. But like anything, you only need so much of it, and anything extra is wasted. If your workouts combined with your body type/size demand 100grams of protein per day for full recovery but you intake 200grams, the extra 100grams isn't doing anything whatsoever. As a matter of fact, if you are intaking too much protein, it can lead to kidney failure. From the Mayo Clinic: (Because my word isn't enough, I've highlighted the important parts to read) For most healthy people, a high-protein diet generally isn't harmful if followed for a short time, such as three to four months, and may help with weight loss. However, the risks of using a high-protein diet — usually with carbohydrate restriction — for the long term are still being studied. Several health problems may result if a high-protein diet is followed for an extended time: Some high-protein diets restrict carbohydrate intake so much that they can result in nutritional deficiencies or insufficient fiber, which can cause such health problems as constipation and diverticulitis, and may increase your risk for certain types of cancer. High-protein diets often promote foods such as red meat and full-fat dairy products. Some experts believe a diet rich in these foods can increase your risk of heart disease. A high-protein diet may cause or worsen liver or kidney problems because your body may already have trouble eliminating all the waste products of protein metabolism. ----- Always be careful with supplementing. Supplementing in and of itself isn't bad when necessary...but when abused over a period of time, it can and will cause detrimental effects. I know people who eat high protein meals all day long, and supplement throughout the day with an additional 3 protein shakes. This is completely unnecessary. With a bit of simple math, it's easy to calculate what you're intaking on average and figure out what you need to supplement (if anything), and this is the ONLY way to supplement a diet properly. Unfortunately, most people don't want to do any work when it comes to diet...so they just guess.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) If the recovery keeps up a pace like the past few months, or better, for most of 2012, the election will be a no contest win for Obama. I've been telling people this for months upon months. If the economy remains in recovery up until election day, Obama wins easily. If, however, the economy falls flat on it's face and we have another financial meltdown, he's in big trouble regardless of who's running against him.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 12:32 PM) Actually, they didn't fully reverse course. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-l...tS9mQ_blog.html Call me skeptical til they start awarding Planned Parenthood grants. I think the real story with this organization is about how awful of a charity this really is. 20 cents on the dollar goes to breast cancer research, and another 15 cents goes to cancer screening efforts. If they really cared about finding a cure, you'd think they'd give more to research than they spend on overhead. But instead, the bulk of their money is on public awareness about breast cancer. So that companies can do things like sell a Susan G Komen Breast Cancer awareness handgun. http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/02/03/gun...l-pink-handgun/ I applaud your post.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) I've given up on using the fat-free and "light" products and have gone back to the regular stuff. I think the crap they replace the fat with is actually worse than the fat itself. Besides, a little fat helps you digest everything else more easily. This, this, and this again. Yes. These chemical substitutes, while "safe", have had no long term testing as they have even existed long enough to know the adverse affects of 20+ years of consuming it. If you insist on cutting fat/calories, just don't eat the products, or eat less of them. Try the olive oil based mayo, at least that contains fat that's good for you, not to mention fat is essential. If you're active you don't have to worry about it, either. This goes for any kind of substitute, such as sugar substitutes...in the 70's it was saccharin, only years later they discovered it caused cancer in lab rats. Then it was NutraSweet...whoops, years later discovered that too caused adverse long term effects. If you love soda, just drink the real thing...and if you're overweight, just, well...don't. The problem with these types of things, from diet to working out, is people who 1) diet, or 2) work out themselves, tend to LOVE giving others advice on how to eat and/or work out. The problem is, in order to give *PROPER* diet or work out advice, you need to know quite a bit about the person asking. IE. their metabolism, body type, weight, overall health and fitness, what they currently eat, family health history, etc...not knowing these things and blindly throwing very direct advice around is dangerous on a level I cannot get across to enough people. It's why when people ask me for workout advice that I do not know, I tend to generalize it. The biggest thing, and I've said this in a previous post is people need to STOP confusing health and fitness, while related, they NOT the same in any regard. Years ago, I too, was guilty of all of the above...because what worked for me MUST work for the rest of the world, too. Not only was I wrong, I was WAY wrong.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) I don't think we discount your information..in fact, I appreciate it. I think sometimes it's more in the delivery than the content. As for supplements, I drink a protein shake on days I work out, but that's all. I don't eat a lot of meat in my diet and so I think I probably benefit from a little bit of added protein in a shake. I do agree with you though, if you just eat with a bit of common sense, you will experience great results with any sincere workout. It's amazing how quickly I see results when I just put in 5-7 hours a week. Are you saying there is something wrong with my delivery? Some of this is merely lost in translation...reading text can often sound of arrogance or cynicism when none is intended. What you are doing supplement wise sounds proper based on what you said about your meat intake. However, keep in mind there are other forms of protein that are nearly as rich in content as meat, such as soy (tofu), milk, cheese and eggs.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 3, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) Let's look at what those poor GOP CEOs are earning, from USAToday http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/ma...2010/45634384/1 Of course one CEO is easily worth as much as four schools full of teachers (about 215). And how many of these "CEO's" are there and how many teachers? I sincerely wish people would stop tossing the monicker CEO around like every CEO is rich when all they're talking about is Fortune 250 CEO's. I know two people who run their own small companies and both are their respective CEO's...and neither make more than 65k per year. To be fair, one of the two made half that.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Feb 2, 2012 -> 11:48 PM) Anyone take any supplements before working out? I know people that have taken NO Xplode and Jack3d and heard good things about both. This is a loaded question, and the answer is...it depends on what you're doing and why. 1) Supplement is the key word, which most people ignore. You only need to take these if you need to "supplement" your regular diet with added nutrients. The fact is, most people living a healthy lifestyle do NOT need to supplement their diets, but do so because "it's the thing to do!" It's somewhat like a insider handshake, but most gym rats or workout nuts won't admit this. 2) It depends on what you're trying to do. Gain weight? Lose weight? Add muscle mass? Depending on the answers to these questions, different supplements would be necessary, or not required at all. Most supplements are gimmicks and mostly cause placebo effect, which do little to nothing in terms of actual "need". Yes, if you take something like Redbull before you work out, you'll have more energy, but it can also be dangerous as it elevates your heart rate to dangerous levels due to longer workouts. Many of those products have the same effect on you as Redbull or some other highly caffeinated beverage does. Do they work? The short answer is yes, because these types of products increase weight loss because they're elevating system functions, so you're burning more calories. It's really that simple, and as I said, it can also be dangerous. Protein powders or drinks work, because protein is the basic building block of muscle. That is, *IF* you need to increase your protein intake (most people do not but want to believe they do, like I said, it's part of the culture). If you don't eat meat or other products which contain high amounts of protein, then adding a protein supplement would be a benefit, and any protein powder you can buy will work just fine. I used to mix Whey and Egg protein powders with a smoothie or skim milk once a day, but that was when I was body building (strictly for muscle mass gain), in conjunction with eating meat. However, if mass increase is not your goal and you already eat a lot of meat, you're most likely already taking in more than enough protein. If you aren't looking to "bulk up", increasing protein won't do much since you're already getting enough of it. As I said, it depends on your specific situation. What about vitamins? Cheap vitamins don't work, first and foremost. The good vitamins will be "food based", which trick your body into actually digesting them and using them. If you take a vitamin that isn't "food based", your body has no use for it...it's somewhat hard to explain, but to any of you taking vitamins, notice the bright yellow color of your "pee" shortly after taking them. That's your vitamins right there...and the money you spent on them...being pissed away. Do some research and read up on vitamins...for the most part, you're already getting enough of these nutrients that you're body doesn't need more and anything you give your body over what it requires will be 'gotten rid of'. You're digestive system is also a pretty complex beast and knows "fake from real". People who push limits, such as Pro athletes, etc...tend to burn more calories and require more nutrients than normal because of this. Regular people doing regular workouts often do not need to take part in most of this money wasting. And most that do haven't done ANY experimentation as to how well it's working. This is usually what happens and why everyone in a gym is an 'expert' on supplements and protein drinks: Person A begins working out...so person A likely starts taking supplements. In a few months Person A notices the grand difference and says it's due to the combination of working out and supplementing their diets that gave them the results they got. Since they never "just worked out" without the supplements, they have no idea if they would have achieved the same results...and odds are they would have unless there was some underlying reason why they needed the supplement in the first place. Vegetarians tend to intake less protein, so such a supplement WOULD be a benefit to them...but to a meat eater doing a regular gym routine, it's mostly not necessary. However, if you are doing extreme routines, where you're looking to go from size 14" arms to size 18"...ok...maybe then you need to supplement. In short, supplements will work if they're required...and only a nutritionist that knows you're routines and current diet (intake) will know if supplementing is necessary. You could know, too...but it takes time to figure out in any scientific manner. I know I'm not known as the 'resident expert', and most of you disregard my workout information...but I know more than you think. Most of this is based on simple math. The good news is, you can get nutritional information on almost anything you eat these days, so you should have a ballpark figure as to how much you're in-taking in terms of calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates, protein and fiber. As a quick example, 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight is what most nutritionists use as a *ceiling* for pro athletes. Most agree 1.5 is MORE than enough for them. For a non pro athlete, it would be even less than 1.5, (IE, not even close to that)...so if you're already topping 1.0grams of protein per kg, you're probably already overdoing it...because let's be frank here, we aren't pro athletes. Note: meat contains a VERY high amount of protein. Example, a mere 3oz chicken breast is about 25 grams of protein. A 6oz steak is a whopping 40-42 grams. And what meat eater here eats a piddly 6oz steak?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) Um, Rommel? Yes, that Rommel, but spelling it the way I did is and always will be funnier in light of where we live.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) Hey buddy, I saw the temporary propaganda exhibit at the Holocaust museum recently, I'm an expert. Seriously though, it was really fascinating (we happened to get in as part of a guided tour) and detailed how effective it really was. I'm not passing moral judgement on all German people here--hell I'm part German!--but giving an example of how an Afghani may not see the situation from the same perspective or with the same information as someone from the US. edit: anti-semitism has been pretty wide-spread for centuries if not millenia and not at the end of a gun. The Nazis just stoked those prejudices to new levels. Well, to be a fair minded individual, this is a very good point and I wasn't really considering it. As for the anti-semitism in that Germany, my father is from that Germany, and my grandfather was in Hitlers military under Rahmel. They weren't given much of a choice about that propaganda. You believed it openly and outwardly, even if you didn't, because the alternative was death.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) Anti-Semitism was a tool used by the Nazis to gain support, not something invented by the Nazis. Many Germans (hell, many Europeans and probably a decent chunk of Americans) were just fine with anti-Semitic views. It was also backed up by soldiers that would kill you if you didn't agree with it. I never said it was invented by them, but it was used by them and enforced in a way unlike most have ever seen. I believe Saddam used similar tactics to get people to buy into his propaganda.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) This is a slight-of-hand. Balta explained his point in detail here and clearly tied it to local support. If this is the case, then you're arguing against a position that no one is really advocating, that this will create new terrorists. This is still ignoring local perceptions of foreign armies, availability of information and the effectiveness of propaganda. Any clear thinking individual in 1930's Germany should have seen right through the anti-Semitic propaganda, but it provided an easy scapegoat for their problems. More to the point, however, is that the importance of local support doesn't mean relying on a bunch of Afghan political junkies who will follow this story closely. They may only ever here of it from people sympathetic to the Taliban. Hell, look at the level of political and current-events ignorance in America, and that's in a country with huge amounts of freely available information. Not quite on this one. My family is from that Germany, and it's not like they were given a choice to see through that propaganda...you either agreed with it, or they shot you dead. So they agreed with it. Quite a bit different than actually having a choice as a clear thinking individual.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) Here is another paper from a Major General who was in charge of intelligence operations in Afghanistan. Is he also wrong in claiming that local intelligence gathering is crucial? http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/public...e507_voices.pdf Reading through these two papers should give you a clearer understanding of exactly why many people in the military and intelligence community regard these disgraceful situations as so damaging. Nobody, from the start, argued that these weren't disgraceful actions. As a matter of fact, I outright said I didn't condone such actions, and they are clearly out of bounds for any military personnel. The argument I made was this incident was NOT going to create any new terrorists. That's all. As for diminished local support, could it have an effect? Possibly. Will it? Impossible to know, and further impossible to quantity. Do I personally think it will? No, because these weren't soldiers following orders, but clearly breaking rules/laws unbecoming a member of the US armed forces. They will face harsh public punishment in response, too. I conclude that this incident will NOT harm the US Military's reputation by any clear thinking individual. The only thing it could do is cause those that already hate them to...you guessed it, continue hating them. Just as my early example of bigotry showed, a guy that hates black people don't require MORE excuses to hate black people...he already hates them...and will continue hating them regardless of reason. These aren't the people that matter in either regard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) No, reading lots of things over the last decade makes me a little knowledgeable but certainly far from an expert. I provided the paper because of your childish "oh Colonel SS" remarks dismissing my claims of the important of local support. So, I provided something I'd read before provided by someone in the military. I've supported my position. If you have other reliable sources claiming that local support is inconsequential to counter-insurgency and intelligence gathering, please provide them. Until then, you have an unsupported assertion directly contradicted by current military doctrine. That's not what I did...that's the problem. I NEVER said local support isn't important. As a matter of fact, nobody did.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) us supporters will still support the us, taliban supporters will still support the taliban regardless of incident. That it will not lessen support for the US military. This is the argument you've made. . I give up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) Please read this paper before making any more claims about the importance or lack thereof of local support in counter-insurgency operations. So reading a single paper makes you the expert on all matters military? Great paper...too bad it's just one of a million of such papers.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:55 PM) Ok, then you're back to "what members of the US military do" having zero impact on local opinion of the US military.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) But up above you've indirectly admitted that you will lose some support, just that those people don't matter because they weren't really helping the US before. This idea is conclusively wrong. No, I did not. Stop creating words or meanings of words without first asking the person that said them. Just because I only spoke of the people that are actively helping doesn't have any bearing on those that aren't. But in this case, they wouldn't matter anyway.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) Please read the paper I just linked for a clear explanation of how insurgency and counter-insurgency works, how vital local support is and how wrong it is to assume that damaging the reputation of the US military and giving ready-made propaganda material to the enemy won't harm US operations. Again, we will NOT lose local support of this incident no matter how badly you seem to wish we will. If this was ordered by those in charge of these solders, it would damage the US military's reputation, but as it stands, this is CLEARLY soldiers breaking rules/laws.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) How sure of you about that? What's your background knowledge? If I told you...you would be dead.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 13, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) You need to explain why that's such a stretch. No, that's not how it works. You made an argument you cannot prove right. Everything about your argument is hypothetical, and it jumps to the conclusion you want it to jump too, be it increased hate toward the US occupation, OR lessened support from the locals. It's not up to me to prove an argument that hasn't be proven right to be wrong. The people helping the US military in this operation won't suddenly stop helping them because of this incident, because these people will understand this incident wasn't condoned by the US military and it was just a fringe group of idiots that did something clearly out of bounds with the rules of being a US soldier. Just as it won't create added Taliban support, except from those that already planned on supporting them anyway.