Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Bill's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. That's an interesting document. It's kind of cool to think how much bigger and more diverse the Vagan Movement has become since then, but it's also interesting to note that many of the issues and problems seem similar.
  2. I'm afraid I don't have a command of the science to tell you. However, if you go back and listen to the 10.14.2008 podcast of "Pro Bodybuilding Weekly" (a great podcast, by the way) in "Pep Talk", Larry Peppy interviews the guy, Dr. Scott Connelly, who invented what turned out to be Met-rex, back in the day. It's really an interesting story. (Although in a later interview he recommends something like 200 grams of animal protein per day, which is f-cking insane from a health point of view, but the story of how Metrex is an interesting story).
  3. It's a bit odd, although not completely unsurprising, that there wasn’t more moral outrage against this. To some degree, I think all the Sarah Palin-haters out there realize that, as they plan to gorge themselves on dead birds, their values are on par with Palin’s on this issue.
  4. I don't think I could have said it much better than RAINRA. In my personal experience (lifting heavily as a meat eater and whey drinker in the 1990's compared to vegan lifting in the 2000's), I think you make greater gains and much faster using whey, for sure. Your muscles get pumped up faster in just a few weeks, and you can lift heavier. But, once you go "off" the whey shakes or stop lifting for a while, your muscles rapidly go to almost nothing, or just a bit higher than the base of where you had started. For example, when I was 19, after my freshman year of college, I could lift, roughly, incline bench of 185 x 6, deadlift 315, biceps 40 pound dumbbells 10 on year arm...etc. I was 190, with fairly low body fat, maybe 8% or so. When I went on a three week backpacking trip to Europe, on an extreme budget (and barely eating two or sometime three meals per day) I lost 20 pounds, almost all of it, it would seem, from muscle. Granted, I gained it back fairly quickly once I started training again, but it did make me wonder. Similar things happened a year later. I went from being fairly huge, to a slim 180 in a matter of a month after stopping whey shakes, and only doing moderate training. On the other hand, I notice now, as a vegan, my muscles look a look thicker and, to some (limited) extent, more "grain-y"er than they did in the whey days. Perhaps that is simple muscle maturity (since I'm older), but I do wonder, to what extent, is it due to how it was put on, and at what rate. Also, if you look at some of the better vegan bodybuilders, their muscles sometimes seem to have a more dense look than similar meat eaters. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part, and I'd love to know more about the science invloved. So, I think I would suggest that vegans give up speed of muscle growth and strength (in the short/medium run), while perhaps gaining a bit of denseness of "grainy-ness", which in a sense, is "thickness", depending on your point of view. I may be wrong though. As a side note, however, for those who may be reading this page as lifters who currently eat meat and drink whey but are considering going vegan (but are afraid of losing grains), I'd highly recommend the "China Study" as it goes into good details about how animal protein causes foci of cancer cells to grow rapidly. In light of numerous scientific studies showing how animal protein promotes cancer, I think it wouldn't be wise to drink masive quantities of whey (or other animal proteins) from a health point of view, not to mention the animal rights and environmental points of view.
  5. Clearly, there's been a lot in the press about black votes and Prop 8. This NPR piece is pretty interesting. Basically, Jasmyne Cannick, a person who is a black lesbian, discusses some of the reasons why the outreach efforts to the black community were insufficient, and need to be re-thought. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96817462
  6. Of course not. But it will challenge some people's assumpions about the US. Wheher that is a facor in how you vote, and to what degree, is up to you.
  7. Take a look at the "electrify the world" comments, and how they relate to world perceptions, according to Nicholas Kristof: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html
  8. I loved the Powell endorsement. His speech about Arab-Americans and trying to combat some of the negative rhetoric related to that was just perfect. Even if Obama were an "Arab", that's no reason to be against him. The US is a country based on universal values, after all.
  9. CollegeB, I know what you're saying and I think there is some merit to it, but do you think any militia in the US today could beat the Navy Seals or Marine Corp in terms of training, weapons, or fighting ability? I mean, I just don't think it's practical to argue that owning guns is a way of detering tyranny. A government is often defined as an entity that has a monopoly of the use of force over a community. Now, for better or for worse, that existis in the US today.
  10. Hehe...that's a good observation beforewisdom. It reminds me of Orwell's classic essay "Politics and the English Language", which talks about how people intentionally use language in dishonest ways: "...Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
  11. Actually, Reagan was an important figure in ending the Cold War, although by no means the most important person/factor. Quite ironically, he was very much against nuclear weapons, even though he is popularly known as a hawk and massively increased defense spending. His greatest legacy was in negotiating a peaceful end to the Cold War, and it's really a shame that people these days (especially neo-cons) only remember his hawkish stances in his first term, and not his diplomatic skills in the second term. In a sense, Reagan's best accomplishment was his flexibility away from ideological positions. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93010521 It’s a huge shame that subsequent administrations didn’t do more to help consolidate Russian democracy and be more sensitive towards Russian security interests.
  12. Also, notice that Obama has the best disclosure rates of any of the candidates, including Nader and McKinney, according to that link provided by veginator.
  13. I really don't see what those numbers indicate. His biggest donor is Goldman Sachs, clocking in at roughly 1/500th of total donations. Isn't that fairly small? Would he be about as beholden to them as Nader would be to your group of collective Nader fans that who gave him $6,000 or so? Will Obama be a slave to the whims of the academics at UC system (#2) and Harvard(#3)? Hmmmm....
  14. I think this could be a big thing. A lot of voters aren't political junkies, but do follow sports quite a bit. They'll take notice. It also shows that the absurdity of the socially constructed demographic of "hockey moms". People who like hockey and take their kids to hockey games don't all have the same political values and ideas. But, again, she seems like a nice person and I'd have no reason not to not like her, if she weren't running for a position that puts her one failed heartbeat away from the presidency. As Dr. McDougall points out, McCain's love for junk food makes you wonder when that last failed heartbeat would be. http://www.vegsource.com/talk/pres/
  • Create New...