Bill

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.

This is very interesting. If hemp is as a good a protein as people say, what properties does whey possess that enables such better gains?

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).

I can't say that I'm offended, or laughing.

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.

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.

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

Do you really think electing a black president is going to cure world ignorance?

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.

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

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.

The fact that he has voted to ban handguns and semi-auto firearms should alarm not just jewish people, but anyone who has sense enough to not want government to have the only means of force as this never turns out to be good for liberty or life (in the more extreme incidents).

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.

They also do not seem to know what the words "socialist" and "communist" means, instead using those words as adult sounding substitutes for the phrase

 

"you are a bad man!"

 

If any candidate is a socialist in this race it would be Govenor Palin as she is practically running Alaska soley on taxes from the oil companies.

 

As far as the definition of "terrorist" goes, that word has long been watered down to be meaningless and has also become an adult sounding substitute for "you are a bad man".

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

Reagan did absolutely nothing to defeat the USSR. Read a book.

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.

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.

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....

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/

I'm proudly voting for Obama, since I think he has a very realistic and nuanced understanding of the challanges ahead in terms of foreign policy, and I generally agree with him on most domestic issues and priorities.

With that said, I think it's great to see that there are some supporters of McCain on this board.

Thanks for the reply chrisjs, and Tasha. I don't think I'm allegric to soy. I love tofu and soy milk, and never have problems with those. I think it is in higher quantaties of the more refined/processed versions (soy protein powders and fake meats) that I seem to have more problems.

Gemma sounds great, but, as far as I know, I'd have to get that shipped in, which costs around $20-30 in shipping, I think.

The other problem with that measurement is that some dudes are larger than others, and so 135 is a smaller percentage of their bodyweight, and as such, is easier for them to lift...

Is that always the case though? I've noticed that a lot of short, boxy guys can really bench quite a bit, while for fairly tall guys, the range of motion, and which muscles flat bench uses seem to put tall guys at somewhat of a disadvantage. For me at least, I used to do a lot of bench (with my best being 185x10), but I have switched away from it because I feel it mainly just works my shoulders and tris, and doesn't do much for my chest. I find incline dumbbell presses and decline press to be much better. But maybe that's just my sorry excuse!

Anyway, interesting contest. I'll give it a go next time.

So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress

Not quite true. They Dems don't have 60 seats in the Senate, yet.

Yeah Bill ,I have been having fruit & soya smoothies, up until recently, when I became intolerant to the soya.

Me too, DaN. I've found that I do well with soy when its less than 10-15 grams or so.

What about digestion issues?

I was having some post-workout smoothies with about 25 grams of soy, plus fruit, and greens, and somehow I didn't seem to digest it very well. Now I mix about half hemp (8-12 grams) and half hemp (8-12 grams) and sometimes throw in some Vega. I seem to be digesting it a bit better, and my muscles seem a bit fuller.

Has anyone else found that you absorb better when you mix proteins?

Troy: is there any reason you just use gemma? Is it because gemma is fairly good in terms of its amino acid profile while being cheaper than hemp? Or just personal prefrences?

Anybody have vids of natural bbers?

This guy, Jeff Willet, seems really strong:

Just to revivie an old thread, two of my favorites:

Jay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGcH2lAJJRQ

(Although I'm not a huge fan of this song, I think the way it was put to the footage is pretty cool).

Another Dorian (from Blood and Guts):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBATxe3DTiQ&feature=related

The thing about murdering wolves from helicopters that makes it so unconscionable to me is that the fight isn't anywhere even close to approaching the illusion of fair. At least with regular hunting of wolves, hunters can make the case and try to fool themselves or others into thinking there's some training or talent involved that makes it a fair fight.

Agree!

I also think that, you know, 70% of the American population lives in cities or suburbs, and people do very little hunting on average, but many people like to think of hunting in a romantic, man being with nature, maybe getting a deer sort of thing. I think "hunting" for a lot of people is associated with outdoorsyness, male bonding...etc. In a sense, I don't think people think of killing when they think of hunting, perhaps in the same way that people don't reflexively associate eating meat with the killing of an animal (due to the fact that meat is pre-cut and packaged so you never have to think about the source).

But shooting wolves from a helicopter and paying money for their dead paws!?...I think for some people, who are typical meat eaters and vaguely supportive of "hunting", that just brings up a really violent image of "get some" violence, a la Full Metal Jacket.

Granted, I agree with richard that it's still unnecessary, but the metal image is different, I suppose.

BA in Spanish Literature

(MA) Master of International and Public Affairs

One year studying international relations at Fudan University (in Shanghai, in Mandarin) at the MA level (didn’t go on to get a degree there)

HSK (a Chinese proficiency exam) Level 9

Six years experience teaching at colleges in mainland China

One year experience working in the NGO field

Intermediate Cantonese