kagoscuba

I was told 90 grams, as a 5'9" male. I routinely get 100+ grams by eating Muscle Milk Protein Pudding (tastes great), drinking Myoplex Carb Sense RTD Shakes, eating hard-boiled egg whites (just throw away the yolk), sometimes some GNC whey protein shakes(50 grams per 16 ounce serving), and now that I am on solids tuna is a GREAT way to incread protein. I've been a avid weightlifter and reader of magazines associated with fitness for years, and I have NEVER once read about too much protein or not being able to absorb too much protein at one sitting. I am curious enough though to go and look it up this weekend.

The reason he doesn't want you tilted forward is it puts too much emphasis on your quads, and your hamstrings will not get as full of a workout on squats. You can get any brand you want, but you will need to find a good feeling pair of cross-training shoes for weight lifting. They have a more even base, and they have a little more lateral support than the Shox. They will also be heavier, but for weightlifting that shouldn't matter.

Red...I don't want to sound like I am preaching, but I guess if I have to say that, then I am. You have to make a decision to take a life-altering path. I understand you are frustrated, and I don't expect everyone to have the results I've had, but a couple of things to keep in mind: 1. You cannot NOT lose weight, if you follow the doctor's food guideline. You'll only be able to take in about 1k in calories a day, and I don't care if you're Ashley Olsen and sit on a couch all day, you will lose weight taking in that many calories a day. 2. If not already, exercise. Burn 300-500 calories a day, and combine that with about 2000 calories for your BMR, and you could eat 2300-2500 calories a day and not gain a pound. I lost 27 pounds before my first fill (2.5 weeks after surgery) and as of last Thursday (will weigh again tonight) I have lost an additional 10 pounds. Granted my results are probably not typical, but even 50% of my results should be. It can be done. I have faith in you.

I've said no and no egg on the car either.

from all people the nutritionist at the gym I just joined. 1. So, when are you going to have it removed? 2. My girlfriend used to be overweight. Everyone told her to get the band, and I told her if she did I wouldn't be her boyfriend anymore. Now she has lost 50 pounds on her own (she still has about another 125 to go). That's nice...coerce the girl into losing weight because she thinks she might lose the guy she "loves." That's a wonderful relationship...not!! Now, what happens when they break up? I'd not give good odds the weight loss continues. This yahoo is going to give me advice? Nope.

I think that says it all, in a nutshell. The 9/11 Commission was a non-partisan commission brought together to explore the events leading up to, during, and post 9/11, and some will still reject their results as an opinion less deserving than their own. That makes about as much sense as a panel of doctors giving someone a diagnosis for an illness and that person saying, "In my opinion, I'm not sick." Condoleeza Rice's own staffer explained the absence of a 9/11 - Iraq link, not Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon, and that is still not enough evidence...amazing.

sorry to LOL, but I am reminded of the scene in "Knocked Up" where the main female lead is in the office being told by her boss she "doesn't need to lose weight, but could she just 'tighten' a little." That scene is great for the lunacy of what is acceptable or not for weight in certain parts of society.

<p>Actually it's not just her opinion only. The 9/11 Commission also points this fact out.</p> Quoted from the report: Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks.

Holy crap, my band made me a woman!! *not a she* No problem though.

Oh, and you didn't ask, but I am personally against abortion, but am pro-choice, as I believe the government does not have a right to tell women what to do with their own body, until that scientific point when a fetus can remain viable on its own or with medical help. At that point, if a woman has an abortion, I believe she should go to jail for murder.

Drawing and quartering an adult is an apples to oranges comparison. You could be as gentle as you wanted to be with an 8 week old fetus, but removing it from the womb will terminate its maturation. Actually, I see nothing arbitrary about medical technology advances and the existence of life. If I ever get in an accident, I have a living will saying not to resucitate me or keep me artifically "alive." Could I exist longer? Sure, but only through medical intervention. Could I have 200 years ago? Not a chance. As I stated before, I am actully willing to give the benefit of the doubt to medical science to keep a fetus maturing as the checkpoint for life versus maturing cell blob. I believe that is called a compromise of logic, based on the two camps of pure science and religious fervor.

An unborn baby, pulled from it's mother at 8 weeks, will cease to mature, no matter what type of medical care it gets. So the black and white "Either it's life or it's not" logic would seem flawed.

When a fetus can be removed from the womb and it can live either on its own or with the help of medical staff, then it is alive. If society wanted to make some other earlier checkpoint, such as brain activity, then I could go for that too However, if going by the point of conception as a reference to potential life, then society might as well ban male masturbation, since potential life is being destroyed there as well.

You cannot kill what is not alive. A mass of cells, yet to breathe, see, hear, or think is not alive. Granted, there is a point when all those things in the womb do happen, and I would agree choice ends there. However, life does not begin at conception, only mitosis does.

My goal weight is 180, because that's what I weighed in the military, when I was in the absolute best shape of my life. 30 inch waist, 2 mile run < 12 minutes, and rock-solid abs. I will get there again! I've already got the exercise part going strong, now it's up to my diet to catch up to me!! It's hard work getting rid of 15 years of couch-potato living! I've already lost a "toddler" though!!

Flaxseed oil, huh? Are you trying out for the San Francisco Giants? Better watch out, that flaxseed oil will make your head grow by a full hat size!! *kidding* *It's a Barry Bonds reference*

I agree. I hate driving to and from work in the dark and sitting in an office building in "cubicle hell" where I have no windows to see the sun. During the winter I average about one hour of visible sunlight during the workday. It could literally be raining cats and dogs outside, and the only way I'd know is by the occasional yelp or meow. I especially hate the lack of the extra hour of sun for golf in the winter. It's going to be 53 this Sunday, but if I can't get a tee-time by noon, I'll never be able to finish 18 holes.

If God is in control, then there shouldn't be a problem with allowing the overdose. If God is in control and wants the person to live, then they will survive the overdose. However, since we all know that is folly, then logic tells us he is NOT in control and never has been of individuals.

Yeah? and Palestinians in Gaza and Paterson, NJ had similar posters and celebrated too...it doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. It makes them people with despicable views. That's just a propoganda photo for Saddam to placate his base. Like I said, he deserved a shot to the head; the entire country did not need to be embroiled in conflict. Some here may have misread my intent. I don't like war, but if pushed to it, then don't do it half-assed. Torture? There shouldn't be anyone left to torture. If they stand on the battlefield, then they die. No prisoners. Non-combatant fatalities? Don't want to die? Flee...our declaration of war should have been warning enough. Having a half-assed war is like having sex with a wetsuit on. Get down and dirty or don't bother. That's what I have a major problem with, and that's what is different from the Iraq occupation (not a war) and our greatest generations' war. They were given the go-ahead for unfettered military force because they had the moral high ground...they had war declared on them, by a country, not a band of radical a-holes, not the other way around. We've got guys on the ground today who can't fire into a mosque after watching combatants run into it. Look at some pictures of some of the churches of WWII...not a lot of them came out unscathed. Combatants run into a mosque? Shell the entire grid square. Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back is asinine, therefore it should not happen.

So, people aren't true Americans, if they don't stand idly by while their leaders pump them full of lies about WMD, in order to rush their country into war with another country THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11????!!! The closest Saddam Hussein came to terrorism, other than his own people, was giving a $25k bounty to the families of Hamas suicide bombers. That's still not worth killing thousands of people (it's worth killing him over though). I remember 9/11 plenty. I remember having friends killed, I remember the numb feeling of driving by that day on the NJ side of the river and not seeing the towers there and the smoke rising, and I remember the acrid smell of those still burning twin towers, when I visited downwind from the area a week later. I remember it so freaking much; I HATE THE FACT WE STOPPED MAJOR OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN WHERE THE REAL TERRORISTS STILL ARE. What do you mean who stood behind the man who instigated it all? You don't possibly mean Saddam Hussein supporting Bin Laden do you? Bin Laden HATED Hussein for being an infidel and wouldn't have pissed on him, if he was on fire. We should have single shot Saddam Hussein with a Barrett .50 and been done with it, if we wanted him gone so bad. However, it has been proven again and again that he had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Now, our "buddies" the Saudis? That's a whole different story.

I guess that gives a new meaning to "his magical wand!" Even though I'm pretty sure I'd not enjoy being hit by his congealeum. Besides, every married couple is a same-sex couple. Every night, it's the same sex.

He's from Texas (well kind of); the context is easy - Hook 'em Horns!

That's pretty cool. I lack a propensity to start a war over false pretenses, since that is what I am cynical about.

I'm a runner, and I'm always having to take grief from people (especially my wife) who happily point out that you'll get the same benefit walking three miles as you will running the same distance, and you won't risk crippling arthritis of all your major body parts. So the other day I had a flash! Going back to high school auto mechanics and some hot-rod magazines, I explained to my wife that since I'm exerting the same force to move the same mass the same distance, I'm doing the same amount of work--but since I'm doing it twice as fast, I'm exerting two times the power and probably using twice the calories. My wife is pretty bright, though: she pointed out that if I run and exert twice the power in half the time, and then sit on my butt desperately trying to catch my breath for the other half of the time, then average power exerted is a wash. Is she right? Does running have any calorie advantage over walking, or am I really being that dumb (not like it would be the first time)? --Peter Prout, Winchester, Virginia Cecil replies: A complicated question, often answered wrong even by those who ought to know. We'll take it by steps: 1. The unschooled view, which springs from the ancient instinct that pain = gain, is that running is better than walking because afterward you're sweating like a horse and gasping for breath. 2. Those with a semester or two of physics under their belts, on the other hand, reason that since the amount of work involved is the same, running a mile has the same impact as walking an equal distance. 3. However, this assumes that running and walking are equally efficient means of locomotion. Generally speaking they're not--running requires substantially more energy per unit of distance. Several factors contribute to this. Shall we start with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics? Eh, maybe not. How about aerodynamic drag, which increases with the square of the speed? Probably not something you need to worry about unless you've really been hitting the steroids. Here's something a little more relevant: Analyses of the biomechanics of walking vs. running suggest that walking is a more efficient gait except at higher speeds. The crossover point is somewhere around 5 mph, varying with the individual. At that speed, walking and running are equally efficient. Below the crossover point, running is less efficient, apparently because you lose energy absorbing the impact of the ground with your bent knees. Above it, walking falls behind because of the awkwardness of the racewalking gait. Gait is the critical issue, incidentally--running speed is irrelevant. Subtracting out the energy required just to keep you breathing, you'll use about the same amount of juice finishing the marathon in two hours or four. 4. To return to our main point, running consumes more calories per unit of distance than walking. For a person who weighs 70 kilograms (about 154 pounds), walking at 5 kilometers per hour (3.1 miles per hour) consumes 50 calories per kilometer, whereas running at 10 kph (6.2 mph) consumes 78 calories per kilometer. 5. Aha, you say, running is better than walking! Not necessarily, even if we narrowly define "better" as "consumes more calories." When you begin a workout your body is metabolizing carbohydrates, but as the minutes tick by you start burning fat--at minute 50 of light exercise, you're chugging along on a 75/25 fat/carb mix. Sixty percent of your maximum aerobic capacity (reached at roughly 75 percent of maximal heart rate, which is generally calculated as 220 minus your age) is optimal for fat burning; as exercise becomes increasingly strenuous you start burning more carbs. Some have seized on these facts to claim that sustained low- to moderate-intensity exercise is a better way to shed flab than going all out. The point is hotly disputed; I merely note that for the significantly overweight, walking can be easier on the heart, joints, etc. 6. At any rate, calorie consumption isn't the chief goal of exercise; cardiovascular fitness is. The American College of Sports Medicine says you should exercise three to five times a week in 20- to 60-minute sessions intense enough to raise your pulse to between 60 and 90 percent of your maximal heart rate. Such exercise should be aerobic, meaning something like running, brisk walking, biking, swimming, or cross-country skiing, as opposed to, say, weight training. Is running better than walking for this purpose? Depends. Running is certainly more of a workout per unit of time, but if your idea is that 15 minutes of running equals 30 minutes of walking, forget it--sustained exertion is the key. Then again, while any exercise is better than none, if your wife thinks a no-sweat half-hour amble around the neighborhood is the equivalent of your three-mile run, she's kidding herself too.

Bruce Lee in the "Tao of Jeet Kun Do" says: "Those who desire fiscal notions only do not see their ignobility, as their internal indoctrination is already ethically corrupt." I'd say that's pretty fitting of those who start wars for oil.