MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Prohibition 2007
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Gluteus Maximus

Trans fats are created artificially and unnecessary consequence of food processing. An extremely harmful "food additive". The govt has every right, and many would say an obligation to restrict, limit or ban exposure of the public to harmful substances. Cig smoke falls into this category too. As does trans fats. As do MANY food additives, drugs and alcohol.

Regulation is a fact of life. I'd say grow up, get over it. No one enjoys unnecessary
govt intrusion into their lives limiting their choices, but save your ammo for another issue that is worthy of condemnation. The ban on trans fats is not worthy of your scorn.

The evidence is in: It is a fact that Trans fats are strongly linked to chronic disease such as heart disease and diabetes. The burden of these diseases on society and individual suffering is enormous with no end in sight. Heart disease and diabetes are sky rocketing, health care costs are skyrocketing in lockstep.

Banning this harmful and completely unnecessary food additive is a step in the right direction. As is a ban on any substance that is so pervasive and so harmful. Applaud this move as you should the ban on cig smoking indoors.

As a bus owner does not give you the immediate right to expose your customers to harm. Public health is a greater good and concern.



Open User Options Menu

Robert Francis

New York, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:







But you ARE paying for it!

Does heroin addiction only affect the individual? Does alcohol abuse? Does obesity? Are there NO public health issues? Should there never be regulation in any way shape or form?



Hi Gluteus,
Remember, Fat People pay taxes too-and they also pay for their insurance.
zand....
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

I think banning the use of hyrdogenated oil is a good idea because they are clearly a serious health hazard and particulary bad for athletes given the disruptive effects on hormone production.
I'm not talking about naturally occurring HO in animal fat - that's a different kind and quite good for you. The hydrogenated vegatable oil (usually soy) that can sit around in tubs for years without going bad is what is being targeted and this certainly seems like a responsible thing to do. In fact I think it's a step in the right direction given all the previous misinformation on animal fats and corresponding encouragement to consume HO instead.

I think the FDA should be encouraged to persue responsible actions like banning HO instead of banning tryptophan and ephedra - anyone know the final status with Ephedra by the way? Some company in Utah I think said they had won a court case against the FDA and could sell it again, but I never see it in the store anymore.

I think soy products (soy protein, soy flour) should receive similar scrutiny; too many studies in too many different countries extol the significant presence of weak estrogenic components.

Remember when the chemically assisted athletes would laugh at pro-hormones because of the presence of relatively much weaker testosterone metabolites? They considered them relatively worthless, but it didn't stop some natural athletes from loading up on the stuff and noticing a mild effect from it. The FDA quickly acted on this but it really didn't seem to be much of a problem compared to the soy. It certainly seems like under the same ruling the soy companies should be required to process these components out of the soy or at least label them; particularly because soy flour is indeed one product that is sold and marketed for use in estrogen replacement therapy.

Soy keeps popping up everywhere we don't expect it - all those HO's in fast food (and sometimes other) resturants more often than not go hand in hand with a good dose of soy flour; I think that combination is probably the worst thing if you are training naturally.

More on Soy being everywhere:

I drink a lot of milk and often put a variety of different things in it to flavour it - not always a milk shake (I like those but sometimes it's nice just to mix some mix in and drink the milk).
I recently mixed a glass of Ovaltine malt - maltodextrin, right? only I read the label and realized it wasn't the ovaltine I drank growing up anymore. Sure it still said Ovaltine malt, but the ingredients suggested they were cutting the maltodextrin 50/50 with soy flour. Since I drink several cups of milk a day and often flavour it, I did the math and decided the frequency with which I should use soy flour to flavour the milk was zero.


Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

I disagree with your call for a SOY ban, soy doesn't even compare to trans fats in ubiquity or harm.

The govt need to focus on regulation of SATURATED FATS now. next to trans fats it does most harm.

Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Next thing you know you yanks will all be driving Ladas and drinking Vodka. At least that way you can cut down on green-house gases.

I'm all for it!

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Of course public health is important. It just isn't the government's responsibility.

If a company is going to include trans fats in their foods or serve foods with trans fats in them that's their business. If someone doesn't want to eat them, nobody is forcing them to buy certain foods or eat at certain restaurants.

It isn't my responsibility to tell my neighbor what he can or can't sell, cook, or eat, and I certainly don't have a right to do so. Neither does the government.

The only thing the government has any right to do is to defend the rights of individuals, which means providing law enforcement at various levels and a court system, and to defend it's citizens from foreign aggression, which requires a military.

It isn't the government's job to do anything else.

Everything the government does requires money, money which comes from our tax dollars. If it isn't my responsibility or obligation to tell my neighbor what they can or can not eat, then nobody else has the right to take and use my money for that purpose either. Even if a large number of people support it, the government still doesn't have a right to do it. If they think it's so important they can donate the money to a private organization dedicated to helping people make informed choices about eating.

Like I said before, more government is rarely the solution to any problem, and usually makes the problem worse or causes more problems. The very nature of government makes it incredibly inefficient for most purposes. Since there is no competition like there is in private business, there isn't the same incentive to improve performance.

More later, have a client coming in...
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Drew Baye wrote:
If a company is going to include trans fats in their foods or serve foods with trans fats in them that's their business. If someone doesn't want to eat them, nobody is forcing them to buy certain foods or eat at certain restaurants.

It isn't my responsibility to tell my neighbor what he can or can't sell, cook, or eat, and I certainly don't have a right to do so.


You don't have the right to dictate what people read either, Drew. But you stated that in bookshops you turn books on HVT training round on the stands so that the spine can't be read. Books that you don't think people should be able to read.

Surely there are some double standards at work here.

Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Of course public health is important. It just isn't the government's responsibility.

If a company is going to include trans fats in their foods or serve foods with trans fats in them that's their business. If someone doesn't want to eat them, nobody is forcing them to buy certain foods or eat at certain restaurants.

It isn't my responsibility to tell my neighbor what he can or can't sell, cook, or eat, and I certainly don't have a right to do so. Neither does the government.

The only thing the government has any right to do is to defend the rights of individuals, which means providing law enforcement at various levels and a court system, and to defend it's citizens from foreign aggression, which requires a military.

It isn't the government's job to do anything else.

Everything the government does requires money, money which comes from our tax dollars. If it isn't my responsibility or obligation to tell my neighbor what they can or can not eat, then nobody else has the right to take and use my money for that purpose either. Even if a large number of people support it, the government still doesn't have a right to do it. If they think it's so important they can donate the money to a private organization dedicated to helping people make informed choices about eating.

Like I said before, more government is rarely the solution to any problem, and usually makes the problem worse or causes more problems. The very nature of government makes it incredibly inefficient for most purposes. Since there is no competition like there is in private business, there isn't the same incentive to improve performance.

More later, have a client coming in...


We could go round and round re-stating the same thing but let's take a different tack ..

Is it your opinion there are NO public health concerns and should be no regulation of ANY harmful substances?

Do you believe that restaurants should be allowed to serve whatever they wish simply because they own the business? Would you eat in such a restaurant, one that is unregulated and rely on the owner not to harm your health? Is this your idea of personal responsibility?

You have a very naive view of the world.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
I disagree with your call for a SOY ban, soy doesn't even compare to trans fats in ubiquity or harm.

The govt need to focus on regulation of SATURATED FATS now. next to trans fats it does most harm.




The government doesn't need to focus on regulation of fats. People need to take responsibility for what they put in their own mouths.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:
I disagree with your call for a SOY ban, soy doesn't even compare to trans fats in ubiquity or harm.

The govt need to focus on regulation of SATURATED FATS now. next to trans fats it does most harm.




The government doesn't need to focus on regulation of fats. People need to take responsibility for what they put in their own mouths.


I notice you like to avoid the hard questions.

Your mantra "we all personally responsible for what we eat" is not a public health policy. Of course what we put in our mouths is by our own hand.. so what? Does this mean that nothing on this Earth should be restricted for private use? Does society have NO interest here?

FYI, trans fats are nothing new, they've been around for a long time. Obviously we are not living up to our "personal responsibility", and we haven't been for quite some time.

Open User Options Menu

davise

When the government says folks in NY can't eat trans fat in the privacy of their own home what will your response be then Gluteus? Because that is whats coming next if this policy is accepted. Where do you draw the line? If you allow government the right to make these kinds of decisions the steamroller keeps on rolling and more and more decisions that should be your own get made for you. I'm grown I have the right to make my own decisions right or wrong without the government trying to be my mommy or daddy.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

To be perfectly clear here, the ban does not affect naturally occurring trans fats, only those artificially introduced through preparation.

Read this for more info:

http://www.cbc.ca/.../transfats.html

Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

wayneman wrote:

You don't have the right to dictate what people read either, Drew. But you stated that in bookshops you turn books on HVT training round on the stands so that the spine can't be read. Books that you don't think people should be able to read.

Surely there are some double standards at work here.



I never said I think anyone should have a right to dictate what others read. I also never said I turned books on HVT around so the spine can't be read. I don't do that at all. What I do is take books that present a more rational training philosophy, and place them over the "featured" books, which are usually nonsensical. This doesn't in any way cover the ones on the shelf, it only results in one being displayed more prominently.

The issue here is personal responsibility versus government control. People should not look to the government to act as a parent or babysitter or charity.

Should restaurants be required to serve foods that are safe? Yes, but there has to be a realistic standard. There are some things which are very unhealthy if consumed regularly in significant amounts that cause no problems when consumed in moderation or infrequently in small quantities. Whether a person consumes these things or not should be up to them, not the government.

Regulation of restaurants should be restricted to those issues regarding immediate safety, such as sanitary food preparation, safe handling of equipment, safe capacity, etc. E. coli is a far more serious threat than a little bit of trans fat, and nobody goes to a restaurant and orders a side of harmful bacteria.

There is a huge difference between laws requiring the food to be prepared in a way that minimizes the chances of contamination with harmful bacteria which could immediately cause severe illness and death, and a law that restricts restaurants from using ingredients or foods manufactured by certain companies because they contain something in amounts which aren't going to cause any kind of harm.

If a person gets E. coli poisoning, it's the restaurant's fault.

There is plenty of information on trans fats out there and readily available. Nobody is making fraudulent claims about them being healthy or misleading consumers. If a person develops health problems due to consistently making poor dietary choices, it is their fault, and they are responsible, not the restaurants, not the food manufacturers, and not the government.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

You're missing the point.

We're not obligated to help anyone else. Society isn't obligated to help any particular individual. The only proper role of the government is to defend the rights of the individual, not to protect them from their own poor choices or the consequences of them.

While I believe people should help others, and believe society should help some people and work towards some causes, it should not be required by law. It is not the governments job, or shouldn't be, any way. Neither is welfare, social security, medicare, or a lot of other things the government does that it shouldn't.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

As a bus owner does not give you the immediate right to expose your customers to harm. Public health is a greater good and concern.


There is a big difference between serving food with trans fats in them and food that may contain deadly bacteria, or having an establishment with lots of fire hazards and doors that can't be unlocked quickly in case a fire breaks out with a hundred customers inside.

Serving food containing trans fats isn't exposing customers to any kind of immediate harm. A little isn't going to kill anyone. Whether it is a problem or not depends on how much and how often it's consumed, which depends on the behavior of the consumer, not the business owner.

While public health is important, nothing makes it OK to violate individual rights (the rights of a business owners or consumers).

Except for certain types of extreme emergencies, nothing justifies violation of individual rights.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

FYI, trans fats are nothing new, they've been around for a long time. Obviously we are not living up to our "personal responsibility", and we haven't been for quite some time.


So? Some people eat poorly, and they face the consequences. It's not our job or our responsibility, and we do not have the right to pass laws to control what they can or can't eat.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
You're missing the point.

We're not obligated to help anyone else. Society isn't obligated to help any particular individual. The only proper role of the government is to defend the rights of the individual, not to protect them from their own poor choices or the consequences of them.

While I believe people should help others, and believe society should help some people and work towards some causes, it should not be required by law. It is not the governments job, or shouldn't be, any way. Neither is welfare, social security, medicare, or a lot of other things the government does that it shouldn't.


You have an extremist viewpoint, and your last statement is proof of this. You are very naive.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

As a bus owner does not give you the immediate right to expose your customers to harm. Public health is a greater good and concern.

There is a big difference between serving food with trans fats in them and food that may contain deadly bacteria, or having an establishment with lots of fire hazards and doors that can't be unlocked quickly in case a fire breaks out with a hundred customers inside.

Serving food containing trans fats isn't exposing customers to any kind of immediate harm. A little isn't going to kill anyone. Whether it is a problem or not depends on how much and how often it's consumed, which depends on the behavior of the consumer, not the business owner.

While public health is important, nothing makes it OK to violate individual rights (the rights of a business owners or consumers).

Except for certain types of extreme emergencies, nothing justifies violation of individual rights.


The Harvard School of Public Health disagrees with your assessment:

"By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,0000 premature deaths annually."

Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

FYI, trans fats are nothing new, they've been around for a long time. Obviously we are not living up to our "personal responsibility", and we haven't been for quite some time.

So? Some people eat poorly, and they face the consequences. It's not our job or our responsibility, and we do not have the right to pass laws to control what they can or can't eat.


How can we CHOOSE to eat safe nutritious food when we don't know the ingredients?
Open User Options Menu

davise

I think you have the extremist perception. We should want to help people because we care not because we are made to. Either way, that is an individual choice.
Open User Options Menu

Iron395

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

FYI, trans fats are nothing new, they've been around for a long time. Obviously we are not living up to our "personal responsibility", and we haven't been for quite some time.

So? Some people eat poorly, and they face the consequences. It's not our job or our responsibility, and we do not have the right to pass laws to control what they can or can't eat.

How can we CHOOSE to eat safe nutritious food when we don't know the ingredients?


Only CHOOSE to consume the food that YOU do know the ingredients of.

Food safety and consumption control is completely up to the individual and his or her choice.
Open User Options Menu

NewYorker

New York, USA

I think the ban on trans fats is a good move. This will improve peoples health. Government actions should be guided by practicality and not dogma.

In this case the ban on trans-fats is practical. The only flaw in the legislation is that it gives the restaurants too much time for full compliance (19 months).

We all know that the big food chains mercilously market to our kids. Maybe this law will make those salty greasey fries that they scarf down a notch healthier.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Iron395 wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:
Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

FYI, trans fats are nothing new, they've been around for a long time. Obviously we are not living up to our "personal responsibility", and we haven't been for quite some time.

So? Some people eat poorly, and they face the consequences. It's not our job or our responsibility, and we do not have the right to pass laws to control what they can or can't eat.

How can we CHOOSE to eat safe nutritious food when we don't know the ingredients?

Only CHOOSE to consume the food that YOU do know the ingredients of.

Food safety and consumption control is completely up to the individual and his or her choice.



Food ingredients are known on manufactured food products because manufacturers are forced to list them.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

davise wrote:
I think you have the extremist perception. We should want to help people because we care not because we are made to. Either way, that is an individual choice.


Go eat your cookies and milk
Open User Options Menu

BloodandGuts

Gluteus Maximus wrote:
Trans fats are created artificially and unnecessary consequence of food processing. An extremely harmful "food additive". The govt has every right, and many would say an obligation to restrict, limit or ban exposure of the public to harmful substances. Cig smoke falls into this category too. As does trans fats. As do MANY food additives, drugs and alcohol.

Regulation is a fact of life. I'd say grow up, get over it. No one enjoys unnecessary
govt intrusion into their lives limiting their choices, but save your ammo for another issue that is worthy of condemnation. The ban on trans fats is not worthy of your scorn.

The evidence is in: It is a fact that Trans fats are strongly linked to chronic disease such as heart disease and diabetes. The burden of these diseases on society and individual suffering is enormous with no end in sight. Heart disease and diabetes are sky rocketing, health care costs are skyrocketing in lockstep.

Banning this harmful and completely unnecessary food additive is a step in the right direction. As is a ban on any substance that is so pervasive and so harmful. Applaud this move as you should the ban on cig smoking indoors.

As a bus owner does not give you the immediate right to expose your customers to harm. Public health is a greater good and concern.




I dont think there is a more historically destructive term than "the greater good". Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc, they all used it.
I have to wonder, who decides just what the "greater good" actually is?

who does it apply to, "society"?

there is no such entity as "society"

there are only individuals.

Govt intrusion is always an issue worthy of condemnation. act on principals not on derivatives.

if you think the gov is concerned about the health of the citizens, guess again. They continue to promote a fossil fuel driven economy which is destroying the entire planet yet ban trans fats because they're "bad". That makes a lot of sense.
did you know statistics show that on average, the cars from 20 years ago got better gas mileage than the cars of today?
but let's ban trans fats because insurance companies are bitching about having to actually pay out on their policies.

it's not the goverments job to provide healthcare, retirement or any other form of insurance anyway. You want to see how great a totally socialized healthcare system works, take a look at Canada's. It's a mess.
as for socialized retirement, one only need look at the sorry state of Social Security in the USA.

if there is one overriding similarity between politicians it would seem to be that they never learn from history. or possibly they do but just choose to ignore it and go about their special interest, short term "planning".

B&G
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy