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

mentzerfan

wayneman wrote:
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!



What's wrong with Ladas Wayneman? It's a fine vehicle but perhaps not as good as the Trabant.

If there's going to be an oppressive Soviet style government anywhere it should be here in Britain. We love queueing and going without. The health of the nation was never better than when we were severely rationed in WWII.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

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



I don't think there's anything extremist about wanting a limited government and expecting people to be responsible for themselves. If there is a need for a service the private sector can and will take care of it more effectively and more cost efficiently than the government.

Individual rights (a redundant term, since the concept of a "right" really only applies to an individual) are more important, and regardless of whether an entire population was making stupid dietary choices, it would still not justify the government doing anything about it. That is not what the government is for.

The proper purpose of a government is defense of individual rights. Ultimately, this means the use of force (the threat of fines, jail time, etc. is all ultimately based on the government's ability to use that force, via law enforcement officers or military).

When a person says "there should be a law...", what they're saying is that the government ought to use force to make people do this or that, or to enforce whatever opinion they have on a particular subject.

If a restaurant owner chooses to serve a particular item that contains some amount of trans fats, in violation of the law, what happens? They will most likely be fined. If they continue to do so, they will be fined higher and higher amounts, and maybe even ordered to close after a point. If the fines are not paid, and if they refuse to close, what are the means which the government must eventually resort to enforce the law? They must issue an arrest warrant, and use physical force or the threat of physical force to take the restaurant owner into custody. Eventually, it comes down to guns.

Nobody has a right to use physical force to prevent someone from operating a business that in no way violates anyone's rights (by exposing them to significant danger, through fraud, or other criminal activity). Not you, not me, not the government.

Are trans fats unhealthy? Sure. Is it going to kill or seriously harm someone to occassionally have a meal with a little? No.

If a restaurant was serving food contaminated with heavy metals or harmful bacteria, it would be an entirely different matter.

Is it reasonable to expect that a person who is concerned for their health would have access to information on nutrition and be able to make informed choices about what they eat? Yes.

If a person isn't concerned for their health and doesn't bother to inform themselves or make an effort to make good dietary choices is it anyone else's responsibility to do it for them? Absolutely not, except in the case of a parent feeding a child.

You would have the government play parent, and treat adults as children. This is not a proper use of government, and not one a government has a right to.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

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."


This doesn't disagree with my assessment. I didn't say people shouldn't avoid eating trans fats. I agree that people should avoid trans fats. It just is not the government's job to force them to.

I don't think people should use heroin, crack cocaine, or methamphetamine either, all of which are far worse than having an few oreo cookies on occassion. However, the government does not have the right to tell people they can not use these substances.

Whether it's unhealthy or not is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the government should be able to dictate what people can do with their own bodies or what they can buy from or sell to each other.

I can't possibly stress this point enough - it is not the government's job to prevent you or anyone else from doing anything to yourself - only from preventing you from violating the rights of others.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

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


There is plenty of nutrition information available free on the web. NutritionData.com, CalorieKing.com, etc., as well as numerous books. All someone has to do is get online or take a trip to the library or book store.

If they're really concerned with it, they should do a little research, and they can always ASK at the restaurant. If it's that big of a deal to them (and unless they're constantly eating out, it shouldn't be) they can always choose to order something else or eat elsewhere.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Gluteus Maximus wrote:

Food ingredients are known on manufactured food products because manufacturers are forced to list them.


There is a big difference between expecting manufacturers to disclose what their products are made of, and telling people what they can or can not eat.
Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

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

There is plenty of nutrition information available free on the web. NutritionData.com, CalorieKing.com, etc., as well as numerous books. All someone has to do is get online or take a trip to the library or book store.

If they're really concerned with it, they should do a little research, and they can always ASK at the restaurant. If it's that big of a deal to them (and unless they're constantly eating out, it shouldn't be) they can always choose to order something else or eat elsewhere.


Where do you think this information comes from? Do you think it magically appears on web or package?

The manufacturer was REQUIRED to list it! And who do you think made them?

ASK the restaurant how much trans fat is in today's roadkill? LOL. Go try it!

Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
Gluteus Maximus wrote:

Food ingredients are known on manufactured food products because manufacturers are forced to list them.


There is a big difference between expecting manufacturers to disclose what their products are made of, and telling people what they can or can not eat.


Expect them to list ingredients? Who should expect this.. you or the govt? Why should they conform to YOUR expectations?
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Tacitus wrote:
What's wrong with Ladas Wayneman? It's a fine vehicle but perhaps not as good as the Trabant.

If there's going to be an oppressive Soviet style government anywhere it should be here in Britain. We love queueing and going without. The health of the nation was never better than when we were severely rationed in WWII.


What's the emissions like on the Trabant? And what colours do they come in? Will we be able to carry our pickle juice and red cabbage in one?

I agree with you about rationing. I've been to the US and they could do with cutting back a bit. It wouldn't hurt them to lose a few pounds.

And while I'm on the subject, I don't think they should be allowed to wear tight-fitting leggings when they are 100lb+ overweight. It frightens the kids.






Open User Options Menu

Madcow2

I think the issue is:

1) Mandating that restaurants that choose to serve transfats disclose such on the menu.

2) Mandating that no restaurants can serve any product with transfats.

One allows conscious choice and decision on the part of each individual while providing him the information he needs to make it. The other removes choice and decision.

In the end supply/demand should determine everything. If no one demands a product, it will not be economical to serve it. The only issue you run into is that humans can be notoriously bad at choices that have long term ramifications (i.e. I think I'll try heroine, everyone else is smoking I'll do it too, etc...).
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

With some exceptions, nutrition labeling shouldn't be required by law either, but since people are more nutrition conscious, it is in the best interests of companies to label their products. This should be left up to the companies to decide, and then up to the consumers to decide whether they'll purchase items with or without nutrition information.

While these things may be helpful, and may do a lot of good, it still isn't the government's job. You seem to be of the opinion that a government is there to provide all sorts of help and assistance but it's not.

I suggest taking the capitalism tour at http://capitalism.org/.../tour/index.htm then spending some time reading at http://www.lp.org, http://www.capitalism.org, and http://www.capmag.com and learning a bit about these things.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

wayneman wrote:

And while I'm on the subject, I don't think they should be allowed to wear tight-fitting leggings when they are 100lb+ overweight. It frightens the kids.


I agree. Fatness and spandex do not go together.
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Drew Baye wrote:
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.


"More rational" being YOUR opinion. "nonsensical' to you. Still amounts to imposing your choice. Have you ever thought that maybe your opinion could be wrong?

Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA


wayneman wrote:
Next thing you know you yanks will all be driving Ladas

I'm all for it!


Da! In British racing green.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, 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.

Hi Maximus,

We agree that responsible regulation done to protect public health is a good thing - banning trans fat is a good as opposed to banning Ephedra and Tryptophan (actions more in line with serving the pharmaceutical industry).

I disagree about the saturated fat though; I think it gets an unfairly bad rap. It's a naturally occurring fat that you can digest just fine - most of the early research maligning saturated fat contained direct advice to replace it with HO which we know now was not very responsible.

Once in a while I pass one of those stand alone burger shops in the summertime with hordes of people swarming around it. I remember the smell of lard from the farm, I know it's healthy and I have no problem eating fast food cooked in it; you can digest saturated fat and it's also going to have a favorable effect on hormone production like the other healthy fats - you really have to do something bad and unnatural to the saturated fats to make them bad - like put nitrates in it, only then can the bacon studdies work - interestingly identical studdies on nitrate free bacon in the diet don't illustrate adverse affects from saturated fat.

Regarding soy:

I was just observing that the logic used to justify banning pro hormones is far more applicable to soy. I argued that the product should at least be lableled appropriately; specific soy products such as soy flour are so effective for ERT (let me know if you disagree, but do a quick check first), then Ovlatines soy malt should carry a warning label to this effect along with other products.
I agree it's not of the same magnitude as trans fat, but it is very similar in action and effect to pro hormones, only with estrogen and the added benefit of anti-zinc (blocks zinc absorption for a more synergistic effect).

These are some of the reasons products like soy protein and concentrate are only approved for use as glue binders in cardboard; as an aside, here's another reference from the farm - I think it's fine to feed that (the cardboard and the soy glue in it) to jacked up cattle - they eat it and grow just fine. Bovines have amazing digestive systems that can turn foliage into muscle in masse, jack them up and they really can eat just about anything - garbage, cardboard, what have you. As amazing as their digestive systems are, they are herbivores, not omnivores and can't be fed meat:

Oprah had the right idea and regulations absolutely need to be imposed to prevent ground bovine being fed to bovines; nobody wants mad cow disease.

Drew,

I'm curious if you would agree with that example.





Open User Options Menu

eintology

California, USA

Drew Baye wrote:
wayneman wrote:

And while I'm on the subject, I don't think they should be allowed to wear tight-fitting leggings when they are 100lb+ overweight. It frightens the kids.


I agree. Fatness and spandex do not go together.


Well I don't know, what if the spandex pants are tucked into a pair of sowboy boots, and accented with a gold medallion the size of Argentina?

Open User Options Menu

mentzerfan


What's the emissions like on the Trabant? And what colours do they come in? Will we be able to carry our pickle juice and red cabbage in one?




Wayneman

Red of course! I can smell that thick leaded petrol smog now just thinking about it. There's plenty of room to fit your pickles and cabbage with enough left over for a sack of potatoes and a metal barrel of vodka made from turnips.

One advantage with the soviet lifestyle is that you get good and lean working in those Siberian Gulags, lots of strength gains but not much size to show for it. They make sure you train to failure. Complete failure.
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

eintology wrote:

wayneman wrote:
Next thing you know you yanks will all be driving Ladas

I'm all for it!

Da! In British racing green.


Too much lead in green paint. Would have to be white.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

wayneman wrote:

"More rational" being YOUR opinion. "nonsensical' to you. Still amounts to imposing your choice. Have you ever thought that maybe your opinion could be wrong?



"Rational" isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of being consistent with logic, and there are books that present information that does not follow logically from what current scientific knowledge related to exercise tells us.

Of course my opinions could be wrong - I'm not omniscient. However, there are some things I am reasonably certain of, particularly with regards to exercise, and one thing I am certain of is that a large amount of what is published on the subject is crap.
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

eintology wrote:
Well I don't know, what if the spandex pants are tucked into a pair of sowboy boots, and accented with a gold medallion the size of Argentina?



I don't know what a "sowboy" is, but if they wear spandex leggings and boots they should be banned!
Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Drew Baye wrote:
"Rational" isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of being consistent with logic, and there are books that present information that does not follow logically from what current scientific knowledge related to exercise tells us.


By the same line of thinking, it is logical to ban trans-fats because current scientific thinking tells us that they are bad for us.

Of course my opinions could be wrong - I'm not omniscient. However, there are some things I am reasonably certain of, particularly with regards to exercise, and one thing I am certain of is that a large amount of what is published on the subject is crap.

But people have a right to make their own minds up about whether it's crap or not. And a store owner has the right to promote one book over another. Just like you said about restaurant owners having the right to sell foods containing trans-fats. Regardless of whether you are reasonably certain about it or not.

Open User Options Menu

wayneman

Tacitus,

Would I have to use kettlebells in the New World?


Open User Options Menu

Gluteus Maximus

Drew Baye wrote:
With some exceptions, nutrition labeling shouldn't be required by law either, but since people are more nutrition conscious, it is in the best interests of companies to label their products. This should be left up to the companies to decide, and then up to the consumers to decide whether they'll purchase items with or without nutrition information.

While these things may be helpful, and may do a lot of good, it still isn't the government's job. You seem to be of the opinion that a government is there to provide all sorts of help and assistance but it's not.

I suggest taking the capitalism tour at http://capitalism.org/.../tour/index.htm then spending some time reading at http://www.lp.org, http://www.capitalism.org, and http://www.capmag.com and learning a bit about these things.


It's your position that we have no right or there is no compelling public health interest in knowing what is in our food supply? Does this extend to clean water o and air too? Maybe we should let "market forces" alone dictate these too?

"If you don't like what's in your air don't breathe"

LOL oh man..
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

Tomislav,

I need to make this quick, since I have to train someone in about two minutes.

I limit soy intake as much as possible due to the phytoestrogens.

Ephedra and pro-hormones should not be banned. Anabolic steroids shouldn't be illegal either, for that matter. The use or non use should be left up to the individual.

The important thing where the consumption of drugs, foods, etc. is concerned is informed choice. Nobody should be able to make fraudulent claims regarding the safety, quality, or therapeutic effects of any item.
Open User Options Menu

Drew Baye

Florida, USA

wayneman wrote:
By the same line of thinking, it is logical to ban trans-fats because current scientific thinking tells us that they are bad for us.


No, it isn't. I'm not proposing a ban of any books, I just do what I can to encourage people to buy better ones.

I don't think they should ban trans fats, even though I think people should avoid them.



wayneman wrote:
But people have a right to make their own minds up about whether it's crap or not. And a store owner has the right to promote one book over another. Just like you said about restaurant owners having the right to sell foods containing trans-fats. Regardless of whether you are reasonably certain about it or not.


You are correct about that, and I probably shouldn't put other books over the displays, even if the book on display is mostly nonsense.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Is it not true, if we exercised our choices well, a provider would have to produce the best product?

Is the reason service has become so bad in America, that the consumer has such low expectations? An educated consumer is the shrewd businessmens' best friend! That was the way it used to be many years ago, and should be now in America. There is only one problem, in that the general public is less educated now than ever. Gimmicks and fraud abound, primarily because of consumer ignorance. These gimmicks quickly disappear around the SHREWD consumer.

Words of wisdom! Buyer beware! It pays to be SHREWD!

A SHREWD person is practical and clever, sound in judgment and sharp in perception, judicious and prudent, discerning and wise. He is neither devious nor manipulative. Yes, shrewdness, is a desirable trait.

Making wise choices and being successful in life certainly requires the ability to distinguish what is right from what is wrong.

Hence, we must learn to differentiate what is truly right from what appears to be right.

The rich and famous of the world are generally viewed as respectable people to be admired. Their social and financial success may make it seem that their way of doing things is right. What, though, about the means that many of such individuals use to gain wealth or fame? Are their ways always upright and moral? Remember my original post?

A way may also appear upright because of self-deception. To base our decisions on what we personally feel is right is treacherous at best.

Dr. Darden in his latest book had a list of what Mr. Jones would tell you that HIT was not! I would like to add one to that list.

HIT is NOT about foolishness and being undereducated!
Only the SHREWD HIT!

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