9nines

I either read new unique writers (David Mitchell - Cloud Atlas and other books - is promising) or classic writers.

Psychology shows that, in social settings, many people explore unknown subjects through humor. It is a low risk (you are only joking, so your poor knowledge will be seen as funny snafus or gaffs versus, which is less personally risky than if those mistakes are taken seriously.) A classic example, of this, is sophomoric sex jokes, movies etc. For example, one can make a joke about a sexual situation and if all laugh, one can safely conclude that a majority of people feel the same way so that idea must be correct or if others look at you weird, you can conclude that your idea is perverted, with either conclusion being found in the low risk situation of joking, which allows you to easily disown the idea. Understanding this psychology might make it easier to handle. Also, if you actually explained the joking-to-seriously-learn psychology you would likely make the people stop. You would be making the jokes into a serious matter, which would unease the jokesters and you would intellectually be calling their bluff. For example, as they joke, say: "Physiological study shows that people often joke about things which they do not fully understand, with joking being a socially low risk way to see how other people feel about subjects, via their reactions to the jokes. While a frequent way for groups to learn and easy to do since it is low risk, I do not think that approach is very fruitful because in depth discussion is excluded. Instead, if you would seriously like to inquire about my diet, I would be happy to discuss it and if you feel safer asking alone, you may come see me later. " Depending on your personality, that should stop the teasing and if anyone seriously wants to know, that person might come alone later, with serious questions.

Know any links to a good men's wallet? I bought a hemp one but it is too flimsy. I want one that is structural strong (does not easily bend etc.) and has slots for credit cards, driver's license, etc. Know any good ones that you have used or seen? Thanks.

Sorry, I corrected the "dairy" in my "diary"(post.) I had originally put milk but changed it to diary then corrected it to dairy.

Correct. Dairy does not contain Vitamin D (it is added), yet the article bases the whole recommendation on dairy being a rare food that contains Vitamin D. If the article were really meant to be helpful, it would state: vitamin D is warranted but you can easily get it from the sun, with just 10 minutes a day exposure a few times a week. Or if you live in a far northern region during the winter, you can take supplements. Also you can consume dairy because most dairy has vitamin D added but it is not naturally in dairy, so you would do just as well taking a supplement. Also, most plant-based milks have vitamin D added (mostly D2 also and that is what your body produces, versus D3 that is more foreign.) But instead it states you need to consume dairy.

No that is not it. Take this as a puzzle and see if you can find it. Hint: think nutrition. I will give you a another hint: a premise here is incorrect: “Although most nutrients in milk may be replaced from other foods or with supplements, vitamin D is found in few commonly consumed foods except for milk,” the report said.

It states a situation leading to "oversupply of meat" Less revenue but still killing just as many animals (just reducing price charged.) Also, the company will likely try to cut cost more (even more inhumane treatment, while cutting corners in processing, is likely.)

Comments like this 'the "mean American diet," comprising a mix of foods' are puzzling. Many opine how a balanced diet of all kinds of foods is the way to eat, saying balance is key to everything. How is the average American diet balanced. It is primarily animal derived calories, with a close second source being highly refined grains (wheat and corn) and tubers (potatoes) and very little else.

Can anyone spot the logic flaw here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2150229,00.html

WholeFoods is actually cheaper on Amy's. One around Alabama and Kirby. Voss, about 2 miles north or Westheimer. One around Beltway and Westheimer. And two others I think. You might want to center some meals around dried beans. Anasazi cook fastest (45 minutes.) You can cook them then refrigerate them. I usually make enough on a Sunday for 3 meals. Sometimes I cook brown rice to save also (takes about 40 minutes also) or just cook quina (spelling??) for each emal as that cooks faster. Then I have many frozen vegetables that cook fast in microwave. So from that one Sunday cooking, I have the following in about 15 minutes or less, for about three meals during the week: Anasazi beans Grain (rice or quina) Three vegetables Salad (either buy fresh greens or prepared salads which have been cheaper lately.) I eat rice cakes or bread also.

I would think it is situational, determined by how each parties conducts himself. For example: (1) If both of you are part of the same or similar societies and you both mutually agree to be bound by those societies' norms then society (civilization) determines. (2) If one or both do not agree with norms, then your encounter will have to be determined by your actions (does one party ignore the others and just let him do what he wants, do they fight? If so who wins? Does one party rely on civilization for help, if so, does it help?)

Funny Example: Question: When you hear about supermodels and movie stars they talk about exercising 2,3 or even more hours every day. But you never see Heidi Klum or Jennifer Aniston with bulky muscels. They just look incredible thin. If I exercised that much every day I would have alot of muscels. Is it becuase they eat to little to be able to build any muscels? Funny answers: 1) because they don't do steroids...and they do a lot of cocaine. 2) even if you exercise(body building) which builds muscle you can do yoga also and it stretched the muscle so that they appear long and lean and not bulky 3) Most women simply cannot get bulky muscles, no matter how much they work out. Don't be afraid to work out a lot and to lift weights. You'll look great with defined muscles! Go for it!

I am fairly certain that all proteins have all amino acids (I am not a chemist but I do not think they would chemically form, as protein, without all amino acids.) Incomplete protein is very miss-used term. Many people use it to imply that a particular protein source is missing an amino acid but it is clearly not missing one - I have never seen a nutritional breakdown of any food protein that was absent any. Instead incomplete protein means a source is lower in one or more essential amino acids than an equal amount of complete protein would have. Here is an example of what a so-called incomplete protein is: a gram of brown rice protein will have 75% of the lysine that a gram of a so-called complete protein would have and meets all other essential amino acids in quantity. Yet it is called incomplete and again many that use that term think that means missing something. So unless you consume the bare minimum protein that your body needs and only from that one source, it is not going to be any issue. For example the needed protein amount divided by 75% (to account for the low lysine in rice), in other numbers 133%, of the needed protein would be satisfied even if rice were you only source (but if that were true you would have a host of micro nutrient deficiencies but not a macro nutrient protein one.) Now since by most estimates, the average American, including vegans and vegetarians, is consuming three to four times the actual protein needed, it is not going to be an issue. Interesting note: some cuts of meat (for example, Hamburger meat's lowest essential amino acid is 85% of what a complete protein should have) are also incomplete proteins, yet I have never seen anyone opine that any meats are incomplete.

Reading the many answers, to that topic and others, is a good arguement against democracy.

Sounds similar to a program on stack machines. I think it is called zero-factor. You do the max weight stack until fatigue then drop to next highest weight and do till fatigue, etc. until you get to very light weights and can not push at all. Not sure if it produces muscle gain but it is a neat exercise, as it is very weird at the low weights. For example, say your maximum bench press on the machine is 200 pounds. You do that one or two reps , until you can push no more reps, then do 190, until you can not push it then do 180 etc. (It is usually just one or two reps each until you can push no more and go down to next weight.) When you get around 60 pounds and can not lift it, it is a weird feeling. You see the weight stack and think, that should be easy but you can not physically push it (it is like you are paralyzed - I should be able to do this but I can't - surreal feeling) after going down the weights as described. Again, not sure if the "zero-factor" I described gains muscle but it does burn and numb your muscles well.

There are different schools of thought. One, keep in "fat burning phase" of 120-130 or the other, HIIT (high intensity interval training) where you go from low rates to high rate intervals. Many swear by HIIT and it is growing in practice. I am trying it but not sure if I can describe the routine well (I do intervals on an elliptical from 130 to 152 to 170 but the 170 is not that tiring so not sure if that is HIIT.) You can search for HIIT to find many sources, on it. On drinking sugary sports drink: that is my own practice to mitigate muscle burning. I also like to exercise at high heart rates and since the science indicates that exercise burns a higher percentage of total fuel as carbohydrates (then muscle if your body depletes the sugar), I want to make sure that I do not run out. I have no weight problem, so I might be over looking weight gain as a concern but even someone wanting to lose stored fat mass, would likely not want to lose muscle mass. Also, I have read numerous reports that advise that highly active people should be more concerned with having enough carbohydrates rather than restricting them. Also, most distance runners take sugary foods, while running. But I would not drink more sugar than you plan to burn. For example, if you use a machine that calculates your calorie burn, drink a sports drink giving you 25 to 30% of that total, maybe. That is what I tend to do. For example, I will drink 130 calories of Gatorade, while doing an exercise, that the machine has estimated is burning 500 to 600 calories.

I was in Philadelphia once, when it was around 15F and all the natives were bundled tight, with ear muffs etc., I was wearing a moderately thin casual jacket. Many people would ask me if I were not cold and I would say I liked it. They would then ask from where I was (probably thought I would say Canada.) When I said, "Houston", they would look at me as if I were crazy.

Curious: are people here normally hot. I have always been hot. Especially a day or two after hard weight lifting. I have read before that weight lifting increase your metabolism enough that you are actually much hotter (it is radiated off you versus actually raising your body's internal temperature) from the high calorie burning. I remember a show where the trainer said the heat coming off people was measured to be materially higher among weight lifters. I believe Robert has stated that he is the opposite (always cold.) How about others?

Neither have I nor can I find anymore references. Also, I can not determine how to contact the author to ask for confirmation. It seems very plausible as it would be easy to convert. For example brown rice has a protein quality (the percentage of the lowest held essential amino acid in comparison to an ideal profile) of 74% based on its lysine content (its lowest essential amino acid.) In other words, a unit of brown rice protein has 74% of the amount of lysine that an ideal profile of the same total protein amount would have and 74% or more in all other essential amino acids. So a conversion would simply be multiplying brown rice's total protein per servings by 74% and list that product as its protein per servings (example, if its total was 10 grams, list it as 7 grams - 7.4 rounded down. In other words, its 10 grams of protein would meet or exceed the amount of essential amino acids in 7.4 grams of protein profile of 100%.) It would similar to converting the energy content of natural gas so it can be expressed as equivalent barrels of oil. That article is implying that that is happening on labels. It would be nice to confirm. Edit: I found a contact list and sent an email asking. My guess is that it is not happening because if you take the listed fat, protein and carbohydrates and multiple each by the calories per gram for each type, you get a product close to the amount listed for calories, on most labels. So, if it is happening, the calories listed are also being decreased and I doubt a nutritional label could or would do that.

I found this: The amount of protein recorded on food labels only lists the complete proteins. A product may contain much higher amounts of incomplete protein that is not listed. Combining such products may increase the total amount of protein beyond the levels expected. at: http://www.ivu.org/faq/protein.html Does anyone know if it is true? If so, please list sources or links. I find fear of protein deficiency is a large block for many people in entertaining a plant-based diet and I would like information like this to educate people. Thanks.

I took an iron supplement (about 18 milligrams) daily based on an ignorant doctor (she based the prescription on blood test taken from allergy complaints and another doctor looking at same report said the previous doctor was wrong: this is why I call her ignorant.) I began to get daily headaches, some severe. It took me two months to isolate the iron (tried removing various things from my diet - iron was last - I am also ignorant for not checking the iron sooner) as the cause. The day after not taking it (iron is toxic, beyond your body's needs), no more headaches.

Clarification: A higher intensity will burn more calories but a lower percentage will be from stored fat - you still will probably burn more stored fat. For example: At moderate intensity and a heart rate of 125, you might be burning 600 calories an hour and 50% are from stored fat and 50% from sugar. At around 150 heart beats per minute, you might be burning 70% sugar and 30% fat but burning a total of 1200 calories per hour. In the latter case, your percentage of total calories burned as fat is lower but you are still burning more fat. The risk now is you are depleting your sugar faster and if you deplete it, you will probably burn muscle for fuel. Drinking some quickly digested sugar (fruit juice, sports drink) during the exercise will help mitigate running out of sugar.

I am not sure about being counterproductive. I think if you make a logical point it helps and if you do not, the point might never be made. Many people learn from social interactions. If no one ever says anything, if society just lets people continue to do something wrong, as if it is status quo, it will never change. For example, (I do not do it as much), I would vocally object when I saw people throw spent cigarette butts to the ground. Based on facial expressions (shame) and actions (some smokers would stop and pick up their discarded butts and dispose of them in a trash receptacles etc., after I spoke) many understood and realized that they were wrong. All I did was state the obvious, "you just littered (point to cigarette butt), why do you have a right to liter, why should all of society pay through being on littered streets so you can discard waste like that." Now some of the littering smokers would respond to me in anger but many responded as if they realized I was right (examples above.) Maybe even those people that picked up their cigarette butts continued to throw cigarette butts down later but at least I illustrated a message that they were wrong. I think that is better than the rest of society confirming acceptance of the littering smokers actions by not saying anything. I think the same applies to animal and abusing them. Much of society confirms that it is acceptable to eat animals, etc. Many restaurant commercials even make fun of eating animals (Chick-Fila and its cows saying eat more chicken and a recent Outback Steakhouse commercial that makes fun of vegetarians, are examples) to reinforce society's acceptance of it. With all the reinforcement, pointing out it is wrong is needed. Being passive and letting people be will just do that. Now, I am not advocating ranting and jumping up and down. I feel that is not effective because the actor seems foolish. Instead look for related situations where you can illustrate the animal connection. For example, I had a friend recently bragging about how nice an upscale wine bar was. He said all the people were so elegant. I interjected, "yes drinking grape juice that was filtered through animal guts is real elegant. Animals parts are used to filter most wine, that is not very elegant in my opinion. It is rather gross." He then changed the subject. Maybe he will remember or maybe he will not, but without me saying what I did, he likely would never have known that animals are used to make wine. Now he does. And in my opinion, that adds to the pieces of the puzzle that will possibly make him realize that it is perverted how much we use animals in all our products and will counter his view that drinking wine in a fancy bar is elegant. Had I not said that the chances that he would see the connection are zero.

Added: you will burn more stored fat at higher intensity (higher hear rate) but will burn much more sugar. This risk of burning much more sugar is depleting your sugar store, in which case you will burn muscle. A likely solution to mitigate muscle burning is consuming simple sugars (sports drink, fruit juice) while exercising. For example, say you are going to exercise at a fairly high heart rate (150+) for 30 minutes. Using estimates on most machines, you might find you are burning 1000 to 1200 calories an hour. So you might burn 600 calories during that thirty minutes. 400 might be sugar (and muscle if you deplete sugar stores.) So drink maybe 200 calories of fruit juice or sports drink as you exercise for the first 15 minutes (sip it during those minutes.) That should give your body enough sugar so you do not burn muscle and you still burn a net 400 calories. That will likely lead to more fat burned during that thirty minutes than if you stayed in the fat zone with no sugar drink.

First, I am not educated in this field, so below is based on my studies born from personal interest only. Also, teh analysis below might be a little superficial but I am fairly certain the outcome is correct. Oxygen intake has an impact on the different fuel mixture but I have gained no understanding or knowledge in that area. You can think of it as a fuel mixture (blood sugar, stored fat and muscle.) Your body burns all as fuel but at different percentages depending on activity. For example, you always burn blood sugar and stored fat during cardiovascular exercise. The percentage of each changes at different hear rate levels. From studies I have read the so-called 'fat burning zone' is burning around 50% of sugar and 50% of stored fat (below and above that hear rate the percentage of sugar is higher than the percentage of stored fat.) At lower rates, the body is not using much fuel and utilizes more sugar in blood, as that is the normal energy sources and the body is in normal mode at these lower hear rate exercises. The 'fat burning zone' plateaus that to utilize both fairly equally. As you exceed the 'fat burning' heart rate range, the fuel need demands of your body increase rapidly (everything is accelerated) and the percentage of sugar burning goes up fairly high, as that is the most efficient fuel (I assume burning stored fat goes down because it is inefficient and can not keep up with body needs at this point - this is only my guess.) Warning on muscle building: This (much higher heart rate exercising - above 'fat burning zone') is also shown to be detrimental to muscle growth because high heart rate exercises deplete carbohydrate stores (most dense pool in your liver and smaller amounts around all muscles) more quickly. Once depleted, the body will increase the burning of its own muscle for fuel (lose muscle mass.)