I would be willing to co-host a new diet thread if there is sufficient interest in that (the Atkins thread has been trashed, and I'm not even an Atkins follower). We would have to enforce civility, and encourage constructive participation (real-life experiences, recipes, etc.). If anyone has an interest in this, speak up here, and I'll check back tomorrow after the US markets have closed. If there's enough interest, I'll make some further suggestions and try to summarize whatever suggestions others have made, so we can sort it all out here before opening the new thread. (Note that I wouldn't be doing this to impress anyone or to promote a diet plan, only to exchange info, recipes, etc., on a non-threatening thread, for the purpose of improving our mutual health. Hey, oneway might even get me to try his chili.) (This is probably a really stupid thing for me to offer, and I am probably delusional in thinking we could keep the delinquents from destroying the thread, or in thinking that I can control the time spent on such a thread. But what the heck, traders take risks!)
There is no need we have several great threads going right now! The issues have been explored and the verdict is in -LOW FAT New threads out ying yang aint gonna change that. You got more to say, say it right here.
Not necessarily stupid, but certainly pointless. Since LS doesn't trade, he's devoted himself to this thread. When he gets bored, or goes broke, or dies, then maybe we can move on with it.
Franklin, Height/weight measures are flawed, largely because they do not account for body composition. For example, you might have an athlete that's, say, 5' 8" tall but weights 190 lbs. Now, the insurance actuary charts are going to say this individual is quite overweight. However, if this individual's body composition is such that he's measuring at 6% bodyfat, and his VO2 max, and blood lipid profiles are good, then he's esxceptional relative to the population as a whole. Most 5' 8" individuals weighing 190 who are sedentary, would have bodyfat levels of something like 30%. For years the BMI (Body Mass Index) was used as a measure of height/weight proportionality, and consequently, risk. Now, many insurance companies will allow an individual to go through an exam with a physician to show they are not well categorized by things such as the BMI. In the case of the 6% bodyfat individual described above, he would be able to get normal rates rather than an inflated, or "risk" rate, even though his height/weight measure is "off the charts." As to the 15,000 calories of chicken being under the 30% of total calories form fat, not more than 10% of which should be saturated, let's do the math, as Longshot suggests. 15,000 calories of chicken, at 496 calories per pound, is 30.242 total pounds. Each pound, cooked by roasting, yeilds 4.00 grams of fat. So, the total fat for 30.242 lbs. would be 120.97 grams. 120.97 grams of fat at 9 calories per gram yeilds 1088.7 total calories. Now, if we divide 1088,7 calories into 15,000 calories, and multiply by 100 to get a percentage, we get the total percentage of fat as 7.2588% - WAY below the 30% commonly recommended, and aslo below the 10% limit for saturated fat. A couple of additional considerations play in here. If we had boiled the chicken, rather than roasting it, we could have cut the fat be even more. Another thing to consider is that fat percentages in meat are typically quoted on a "wet weight" basis. Meaning the fat content is calculated on raw meat. How's that for "doing the math," Longshot? We're still waiting for your qualifications - other than inane sarcasm - for adressing diet/nutrition issues. I guess we've established that at least math isn't one of them.
What an asinine computation! I could eat a MILLION FIVE cals and still be under RDA's. BWAHAHAHAH!! BWAHAHAHAHAH!! Better yet lets eat FIFTEEN MILLION CALS.. we're still under guidelines. What a miracle food you found here! LMAO!!! Did you graduate one of those caribbean med schools? I'll tell you as I told TM, you wanna talk real world diets and standards that's fine. But I'm not playing these ridiculous sematical games anymore. [What a maroon ]
Oh Longshot, let's see if we can educate you a bit further - doubtful, as you've so clearly demonstrated, but we'll try...again. The recommended levels of fat are set as a PERCENTAGE of total calories. This means that the absolute NUMBER of calories is irrelevant, only the PERCENTAGE of calories from fat. So, whether we use 15,000, or 15,000,000 or any other number, the PERCENTAGES don't change! Brush up on your math. Most commonly recommended is 30% of total calories form fat, with no more than 10% coming from saturated fat. I still haven't gotten any response to my question of your qualifications. Well, come to think of it, in looking over your responses - I guess I have!
Since this forum thread seems to have become Remedial Education for Longshot, let's correct his use of grammar, and spelling, along with his math skills. No Longshot, you are not playing "sematical" games with me, because such a word doesn't exist. I think what you meant was SEMANTIC games. Unfortunately, you havent't gotten this one right either. Semantics, as applied to linguistics, refers to the study of the meanings of speech forms, especially the development and changes in the meanings of words and word groups. I have been very clear, and precise in both my meaning, terminology, questions, and calculations. So there has been no SEMANTIC missunderstanding, no "game playing." You on the other hand, have been sarcastic, rambling, evasive, poorly-educated, and seem to defend yourself by engaging in ad homiem attacks. To add further to your schooling, ad homiem attacks are a logical fallacy commited when one attacks a person, rather than the substance of their argument. Just keep puttin' your foot in it.
trader56, Your talking to a brick wall. Longshot proved many times he cannot do simple MATH. His micropenis prevents him from ever admitting he is wrong. Its as simple as that. Here is one of MANY posts we made long ago in the Atkins thread. After many many attempts, he still cannot accept the basic MATH which proves you can eat a LOT of meat and still be on a low fat diet One of MANY of my previous posts: ======================================= 3 oz of tuna in water is 90 calories. 600 calories is 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. Only 4.5 calories are fat in that 90 calorie serving of tuna. It takes 133 3 oz servings of tuna to get the 30% RDA of fat. 133 X 4.5 = 598.5 FAT calories, AAAAAAAND 133 X 90 = 11,970 CALORIES OF TUNA TO ACHIEVE 30% RDA of fat! I repeat: 11,970 TUNA CALORIES are required to achieve the RDA of fat!!! Damn longshot.... I guess MEAT is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR lower in fat than you had ever imagined ======================================== FURTHER: We could easily obtain 15% fat a day by dividing by 2. Then we could eat a whopping 5985 calories worth of tuna and STILL only eat 15% fat that Ornish wants to see! Thats 66.5 servings of tuna and your STILL under 15% fat !!! I was surprised myself just how much tuna or chicken you can eat and stay WELL BELOW the RDA for fat, or even EASILY stay within Ornish's guidelines for low fat. But it doesn't matter trader56. Even with OBJECTIVE proof like this, longshot is INCAPABLE of admitting he is wrong. What more proof do you need of delusion or micro-penis issues? peace axeman
You on the other hand, have been sarcastic, rambling, evasive, poorly-educated, and seem to defend yourself by engaging in ad homiem attacks. To add further to your schooling, ad homiem attacks are a logical fallacy commited when one attacks a person, rather than the substance of their argument. Already? LOL. Just as I predicted. Longshot is up against the fence getting his rabbit brains bashed to pieces by you trader56. All he can do is personally attack you at this point. The argument has already been won. The numbers dont lie. The guy is simply delusional. You cant eat meat and eat low fat dontcha know? Longshot is soooooo smart in his own little mind, that even the laws of MATH do NOT apply to him...lmaooooo peace axeman