Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: delta9mda on February 16, 2007, 07:44:20 PM
-
yo bro, you say a calorie is a calorie but in vince g's diet you say too much protien. if a cal is a cal what does it matter. edumacate me to adonis ideas.
-
yo bro, you say a calorie is a calorie but in vince g's diet you say too much protien. if a cal is a cal what does it matter. edumacate me to adonis ideas.
Calories are calories when it comes to energy values.
Vince Goodrum was eating too many calories. Cutting Protein would be needed as excess Protein is just a waste.
Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet.
-
but what if he cut the carbs and fat and relied on protien as his fuel/ building source as it is harder for the body to process protien therefore burning more cals in digestion?
-
but what if he cut the carbs and fat and relied on protien as his fuel/ building source as it is harder for the body to process protien therefore burning more cals in digestion?
He would not only feel miserable, he would perform miserably. The only thing that fuels the brain and muscles are Carbohydrates.
This form of unnessecary self-torture will also lower leptin to an insatiable degree.
-
but what if he cut the carbs and fat and relied on protien as his fuel/ building source as it is harder for the body to process protien therefore burning more cals in digestion?
The thermogenic effect of Protein Digestion is VERY MINIMAL!
50-100 calories perhaps at best.
You could achieve the same effect by just typing on getbig for an hour, having a simple conversation with your girlfriend or wife for 45 minutes or even easier, eating 50-100 calories less.
-
Protein "Thermogenesis" Myth
"Thermogenesis" or something that has a "thermogenic" effect on the body refers to anything that causes the temperature inside your body (sometimes your temperature on the skin is different from the temperature inside, your core temperature) to rise, to increase. Well, we all know from school that the average / normal core body temperature is 98.6 degrees. However, when your core temperature increases, even by just 1 or 2 degrees, it is said that this higher temperature causes the body to turn into a "furnace", raising the metabolism, which results in fat being burned.
Well, what does this have to do with building muscle mass and gaining weight? Well, one of the many reasons everyone and their mother seems to recommend eating a high protein diet is because of this "thermogenic" effect. People are under the misconception that you can gain a lot of muscle weight without gaining fat if you eat a high protein diet.
This is because protein DOES have a thermogenic effect on the body...........but not enough to make an impact! Here's where everyone is missing the point. Sure, protein causes the body to work harder to digest it, which causes the body's internal temperature to rise, but it is NOT enough to really make a dent in burning fat or preserving muscle mass.
Researchers at Arizona State University examined individuals that ate a high protein diet and compared them to another group that ate a high carb diet. What they found was that eating a high protein diet resulted in an average of 30 calories per meal being burned in digestion.
Read that again.......30 calories per meal. Whoop-tee, doo!!! 30 calories! Okay, then let's say you eat 5 meals a day. 30 calories per meal, 5 meals a day, that equals 150 calories. So, you would only be burning an extra 150 calories a day if you were to go on a high protein diet. Big deal!!!! 150 calories is 1 cup of milk. It's 2 eggs. It's half a candy bar. 150 calories isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in helping you gain weight, build muscle mass, or burn fat.
Everyone keeps saying, "Oh, but you can eat more protein and not gain any fat because of the thermogenic effect". Give me a break........150 calories.....I rather just cut out 1 can of soda a day and get the same effect!
Don't be fooled by the "high-protein" fans. They just want you to go out and spend your hard-earned money on their bucket of protein. If you are looking to gain weight and build muscle, concentrate on the overall calories.
CALORIES BURNED BY TALKING:Sitting while talking
Including talking on the phone 46 an hour.
hahahahahah
-
Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet.
How so? Adequate protein intake? What the hell is that? Don't you want to optimize everything? Not just one macro-nutrient?
And by the way, why are carbs so important, yet they aren't ESSENTIAL?!?!?! Answer me than prick.
-
How so? Adequate protein intake? What the hell is that? Don't you want to optimize everything? Not just one macro-nutrient?
And by the way, why are carbs so important, yet they aren't ESSENTIAL?!?!?! Answer me than prick.
USRDA is adequate.
-
USRDA is adequate.
im going to have to say no to that.
-
USRDA is adequate.
And why are carbohydrates not essential?
Adequate and optimal are two different things. Then again, maybe that's why you're a 160lb elf with photoshop capabilities. :-\
-
Protein "Thermogenesis" Myth
"Thermogenesis" or something that has a "thermogenic" effect on the body refers to anything that causes the temperature inside your body (sometimes your temperature on the skin is different from the temperature inside, your core temperature) to rise, to increase. Well, we all know from school that the average / normal core body temperature is 98.6 degrees. However, when your core temperature increases, even by just 1 or 2 degrees, it is said that this higher temperature causes the body to turn into a "furnace", raising the metabolism, which results in fat being burned.
Well, what does this have to do with building muscle mass and gaining weight? Well, one of the many reasons everyone and their mother seems to recommend eating a high protein diet is because of this "thermogenic" effect. People are under the misconception that you can gain a lot of muscle weight without gaining fat if you eat a high protein diet.
This is because protein DOES have a thermogenic effect on the body...........but not enough to make an impact! Here's where everyone is missing the point. Sure, protein causes the body to work harder to digest it, which causes the body's internal temperature to rise, but it is NOT enough to really make a dent in burning fat or preserving muscle mass.
Researchers at Arizona State University examined individuals that ate a high protein diet and compared them to another group that ate a high carb diet. What they found was that eating a high protein diet resulted in an average of 30 calories per meal being burned in digestion.
Read that again.......30 calories per meal. Whoop-tee, doo!!! 30 calories! Okay, then let's say you eat 5 meals a day. 30 calories per meal, 5 meals a day, that equals 150 calories. So, you would only be burning an extra 150 calories a day if you were to go on a high protein diet. Big deal!!!! 150 calories is 1 cup of milk. It's 2 eggs. It's half a candy bar. 150 calories isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in helping you gain weight, build muscle mass, or burn fat.
Everyone keeps saying, "Oh, but you can eat more protein and not gain any fat because of the thermogenic effect". Give me a break........150 calories.....I rather just cut out 1 can of soda a day and get the same effect!
Don't be fooled by the "high-protein" fans. They just want you to go out and spend your hard-earned money on their bucket of protein. If you are looking to gain weight and build muscle, concentrate on the overall calories.
CALORIES BURNED BY TALKING:Sitting while talking
Including talking on the phone 46 an hour.
hahahahahah
God another cut & paste.
-
All you need is some common sense for this level of nutrition, not a fucking degree or a four day bitch course to become a 'Nutritionist'.
the body is a 'furnace' and the food is 'fuel' all you have to know is the foods properties which you are putting into your mouth and the optimum times at which to consume that, or when not to.
-
God another cut & paste.
http://muscle-weight-gain.blogspot.com/2005_01_27_muscle-weight-gain_archive.html
-
And why are carbohydrates not essential?
Adequate and optimal are two different things. Then again, maybe that's why you're a 160lb elf with photoshop capabilities. :-\
Answer me Adonis. Why are carbohydrates not essential?
-
Adonis,
where can I find an accurate chart that lists what foods have how much calories and how many calories are burned by different daily activities???
-
adonis, why are you too much of a vagina to answer your own challenge? :)
-
Answer me Adonis. Why are carbohydrates not essential?
If you notice Apenis will answer questions about stuff he doesn't know by going on the internet finding the answer then cut & pasting the answer. When he post one or two lines of text to a questions that is his real answer. But most of the time it is just a bunch of bullshit he posts. He pretends to know things he doesn't and gets caught cut & pasting the answer. It's sad to be so stupid as he is and trying so hard to be smart. He must get headaches all the time. But he has that dyke Heckler to soothe his pain.
-
he doesnt understand that fat, then carbs are stored more easily as fat then protein. the reason being the biochemistry of it. fat basically only needs lipases. carbs enter the tca cycle. but proteins are needed for all enzymatic activities and building of the body. and are the last to be stored. they are harder to store.
he is an idiot. that knows nothing.
-
If you notice Apenis will answer questions about stuff he doesn't know by going on the internet finding the answer then cut & pasting the answer. When he post one or two lines of text to a questions that is his real answer. But most of the time it is just a bunch of bullshit he posts. He pretends to know things he doesn't and gets caught cut & pasting the answer. It's sad to be so stupid as he is and trying so hard to be smart. He must get headaches all the time. But he has that dyke Heckler to soothe his pain.
its SO fucking true.
-
Calories are calories when it comes to energy values.
Vince Goodrum was eating too many calories. Cutting Protein would be needed as excess Protein is just a waste.
Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet.
ROFLMAF, I guess an amino acid is an amino acid
-
Try to build a house with no nails, see how long it stands.
Ever heard of Scurvy or Anemia?
These are diseases of not having enough vitamins.
By the way, a calorie is only a measue of energy, and it isn't cal it is kcal.
It is a measure of energy BEFORE food is digested. Different foods require more energy to digest. Protein being one of the more difficult i.e red meat.
You're body might burn 10 calories digesting a steak with 100 kcal, and only 2 calories digesting a 100kcal orange. So in theory before digestion, you are correct, however the end result is not.
-
TA seems to have a point with the calories are calories thing
-
http://muscle-weight-gain.blogspot.com/2005_01_27_muscle-weight-gain_archive.html
and he never gives credit but pretends that they are his words
-
TA seems to have a point with the calories are calories thing
air is air
sky is sky
brick is a brick
car is a car
want me to enlighten you on other "new and inventive" things
-
Try to build a house with no nails, see how long it stands.
Ever heard of Scurvy or Anemia?
These are diseases of not having enough vitamins.
By the way, a calorie is only a measue of energy, and it isn't cal it is kcal.
It is a measure of energy BEFORE food is digested. Different foods require more energy to digest. Protein being one of the more difficult i.e red meat.
You're body might burn 10 calories digesting a steak with 100 kcal, and only 2 calories digesting a 100kcal orange. So in theory before digestion, you are correct, however the end result is not.
I'll say this: I was in the hospital for a digestive issue over the summer. i was told that I was not to eat Red Meat for awhile cause it is so much harder to digest and your digestive system has to work very hard. How can this not equate to the burning of calories during the digetive process?
-
The only thing that fuels the brain and muscles are Carbohydrates.
Actually Adam.....thats not true....the brain can use ketones for fuel:
Barry A Groves,
Independent researcher
OX7 6LP, www.second-opinions.co.uk
Send response to journal: BMJ 2005; 331: 925-c
Re: We don't need to spend more on research into Alzheimer's disease
The declines in mental faculties with old age, which are becoming increasingly common, are accepted as sad and heartrending, but ‘normal’: an inevitable consequence of old age. But this attitude is quite wrong as this decline need never happen and should never happen. Senility and its associated conditions are yet more examples of modern diseases which are very rare in primitive society and which are entirely preventable in ours.
Alzheimer’s disease, which only really appeared in the last century, is an increasingly prevalent, age-related degenerative brain disorder in Western societies. In Alzheimer’s disease, neurons in the brain regions that control learning and memory functions (hippocampus and basal forebrain) are selectively vulnerable.
Studies of postmortem brain tissue from Alzheimer’s have provided evidence that the condition has similar causes to other diseases classed together under the 'Metabolic Syndrome'. Recent data suggest that this disease can manifest systemic alterations in energy metabolism (increased insulin resistance and deregulation of glucose metabolism, for example). Evidence is emerging that dietary manipulation can prevent this devastating brain disorder.
It is argued by some that the recent growth in numbers of people succumbing to Alzheimer’s disease may be because it is a disease of the elderly and people are living longer. But there may also be other reasons: dietary reasons.
For example: NIDDM is associated with a range of serious conditions, such as heart disease, stroke and blindness. But diabetes is also associated with a deterioration of memory, cognition, speech memory, working memory and visual-spatial skills. Recent research suggests that it could also lead to Alzheimer’s disease and to a general decline in cognitive functions. NIDDM is caused entirely by a carbohydrate-based, 'healthy' diet.
For nine years a research team followed 824 Catholic priests and nuns, 127 of whom had diabetes. One hundred and fifty-one of them went on to develop Alzheimer’s.[1]The study team found that those who had diabetes were 65 percent more likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
Researcher Zoë Arvanitakis found that insulin in the blood stimulates a protein called ‘tau’ which tangles brain cells into Alzheimer knots. But the actual causal factor is likely to be our ‘healthy’ diet as that is what stimulates the production of insulin and is also, of course, the cause of diabetes.
The low cholesterol we are all supposed to strive for is another likely cause. Corrigan and colleagues writing in 1991 about the relief of Alzheimer’s Disease, ask that ‘strategies for increasing the delivery of cholesterol to the brain should be identified’. They recommend increasing fat intake.[2]
The Framingham Study gave confirmation to Corrigan’s work when it examined the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive performance.[3] Four to 6 years after a 16- to 18-year surveillance period, cognitive tests were administered consisting of measures of learning, memory, attention, concentration, abstract reasoning, concept formation, and organizational abilities. The researchers found a significant linear association between the level of blood cholesterol and measures of verbal fluency, attention, concentration, abstract reasoning, and a composite score measuring multiple cognitive domains. Participants with ‘desirable’ cholesterol levels of less than 5.2 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) performed significantly less well than participants with cholesterol levels higher than 6.25 mmol/L (240 mg/dL). Dr. Penelope K. Elias from Boston University said that ‘It is not entirely surprising that lower cholesterol levels were associated with moderately lower levels of cognitive function, given [that] cholesterol is important in brain function.’
A third avenue also involves increasing fat intake. Two prospective studies reported that Alzheimer’s disease is less prevalent among those who consume fish; and other reports have linked low levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood with Alzheimer’s disease. In an epidemiological study, Morris and colleagues in Chicago, Illinois, USA, reported that the number of cases of Alzheimer’s disease was 60 percent lower in people who consumed fish once a week compared with those who rarely or never ate fish.[4] Although fatty fish is recommended as part of a ‘healthy’ diet, it is difficult to comply if one is already full up with starchy foods.
Dietary treatment
The brain uses a disproportionately large amount of energy for its weight, and it normally needs to extract it directly from glucose as it is unable to use fatty acids or amino acids. However, the brain can use ketones which are derived from dietary fats. This is how it survives during periods of prolonged fasting and starvation.
During the 1990s, diet-induced high blood levels of ketones were found to be effective for treatment of several rare genetic disorders involving impaired use of glucose or its metabolic products by brain cells.[5] Another team also found that ketones protect neurons from a heroin analogue which induces Parkinson’s disease, and a protein fragment which accumulates in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients.[6] More than that, addition of ketones alone actually increased the number of surviving neurons from the hippocampus which suggests that ketones may even act as growth factors for neurons.
The low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet relies on ketone bodies to supply the bulk of the body’s energy needs. We know that ketogenic diets are very effective treatments for many other chronic degenerative medical conditions. The evidence is that Alzheimer’s disease may also be successfully treated and, more importantly, prevented with a low- carbohydrate, high-fat, ketogenic diet.
However, all current official dietary advice is that low- carbohydrate, high-fat diets are 'unhealthy'. That is demonstrably untrue, but until current dietary advice is seen for the disaster it really is, we can expect the incidence of diseases such as Alzheimer's to increase.
We don't need to spend more on research into Alzheimer's disease, just to consider the work already done -- and revise current dietary advice.
References
1. Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and risk of Alzheimer disease and decline in cognitive function. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 661-6.
2. Corrigan FM, et al. Dietary supplementation with zinc sulphate, sodium selenite and fatty acids in early dementia of Alzheimer’s Type II: Effects on lipids. J Nutr Med 1991; 2: 265‑71.
3. Elias PK, Elias MF, D’Agostino RB, et al. Serum Cholesterol and Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Heart Study. Psychosomatic Medicine 2005; 67:24–30.
4. Morris MC, Evans DA, Bienias JL, et al. Consumption of fish and n- 3 fatty acids and risk of incident Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2003;60:940-946.
5. VanItallie TB, Nufert TH. Ketones: metabolism’s ugly duckling. Nutr Rev 2003; 61: 327-41.
6. Kashiwaya Y, Takeshima T, Mori N, et al. D-b-Hydroxybutyrate protects neurons in models of Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease. PNAS 2000: 97: 5440-4.
-
True but I think Adam is trying to point out the importance of carbohydrates.... they fuel more activity than protein but some bb eat 350 grams of protein a day...... its plain stupid
-
i can't believe anyone would argue that the brain only uses carbs for fuel. ketogenic diets have been around for decades, i've done one myself. it's not great for getting shredded but for the first chunk of fat loss it's gold.
moreover, adam neglects all kinds of things in his BS "calorie is a calorie" theory. ignoring the fact that the macronutrients are treated VERY differently in the body (otherwise you could eat M&Ms all day and feel the same as if you stuck with lean hamburgers on wheat buns), he tosses out things like "insulin response" or "the difference between eating solids and liquids".
adumb has taken the hardline approach that nothing makes a difference, your body needs X calories in a day and as long as you eat 'em you're fine. try this experiment sometime. first thing in the morning, make an omelette with a few whole eggs, low fat cheese, veggies, then have a big glass of milk. count the calories and see how long it takes you to feel hungry again.
now do the same thing the next day, but drink pepsi for ALL those calories. caffeine free if you think that'll skew the results. see what happens.
-
Answer me Adonis. Why are carbohydrates not essential?
As a codicil to this, many cultures (Inuit & some South Pacific Islanders) whose diets were almost all protein have seen almost endemic pathologies with the introduction of carbs, albeit mostly shit foods.
/badly worded, and ignores the body's starvation instinct, i know, but you get my point
-
Bump...
Can we have an answer that's not copied & pasted?
-
Actually, no I don't get your point. :-\
I simply asked Adam why carbs are essential. He's ignored or been unable to answer me. It's simple question, that I only want him to answer. If he can't answer it, it really throws the entire philosophy of "the Adonis Principles" out the window.
-
Actually, no I don't get your point. :-\
I simply asked Adam why carbs are essential. He's ignored or been unable to answer me. It's simple question, that I only want him to answer. If he can't answer it, it really throws the entire philosophy of "the Adonis Principles" out the window.
Give him time to google for an answer.
This will help http://www.google.com/search?q=essential+carbohydrates
-
Give him time to google for an answer.
This will help http://www.google.com/search?q=essential+carbohydrates
hahaha you have a whopping 15 posts and half of them make this joke about googling. And all of them are anti-Team Adonis. Monster gimmick account created for the sole purpose of stalking Team Adonis. ::)
-
Heckler, you being one that was created by Adonis himself, for the sole purpose of being an Adonis Nut Hugger are accusing somebody of being on the other side?
That's rich. Or pathetic, depending on your take on it.
-
Heckler, you being one that was created by Adonis himself, for the sole purpose of being an Adonis Nut Hugger are accusing somebody of being on the other side?
I am ???
-
hahaha you have a whopping 15 posts and half of them make this joke about googling. And all of them are anti-Team Adonis. Monster gimmick account created for the sole purpose of stalking Team Adonis. ::)
Taking the time to look at all my old post... Owned.
Why not answer the questions?
-
Taking the time to look at all my old post... Owned.
Oh yes, it took SO MUCH time to glance at 14 posts. ::)
-
hahaha you have a whopping 15 posts and half of them make this joke about googling. And all of them are anti-Team Adonis. Monster gimmick account created for the sole purpose of stalking Team Adonis. ::)
what's "team adonis"?
-
Oh yes, it took SO MUCH time to glance at 14 posts. ::)
I'm in your head like The Squadfather is in your colon.
Answer the questions adam....
-
I'm in your head like The Squadfather is in your colon.
Answer the questions adam....
hahaha, heckler getting out-heckled. well done. 8)
-
what's "team adonis"?
The only people that back up that pathetic piece of shit we all know as "The True Adonis."
They're also one and the same, as Adonis. Gimmicks, in other words.
-
Protein "Thermogenesis" Myth
"Thermogenesis" or something that has a "thermogenic" effect on the body refers to anything that causes the temperature inside your body (sometimes your temperature on the skin is different from the temperature inside, your core temperature) to rise, to increase. Well, we all know from school that the average / normal core body temperature is 98.6 degrees. However, when your core temperature increases, even by just 1 or 2 degrees, it is said that this higher temperature causes the body to turn into a "furnace", raising the metabolism, which results in fat being burned.
Well, what does this have to do with building muscle mass and gaining weight? Well, one of the many reasons everyone and their mother seems to recommend eating a high protein diet is because of this "thermogenic" effect. People are under the misconception that you can gain a lot of muscle weight without gaining fat if you eat a high protein diet.
This is because protein DOES have a thermogenic effect on the body...........but not enough to make an impact! Here's where everyone is missing the point. Sure, protein causes the body to work harder to digest it, which causes the body's internal temperature to rise, but it is NOT enough to really make a dent in burning fat or preserving muscle mass.
Researchers at Arizona State University examined individuals that ate a high protein diet and compared them to another group that ate a high carb diet. What they found was that eating a high protein diet resulted in an average of 30 calories per meal being burned in digestion.
Read that again.......30 calories per meal. Whoop-tee, doo!!! 30 calories! Okay, then let's say you eat 5 meals a day. 30 calories per meal, 5 meals a day, that equals 150 calories. So, you would only be burning an extra 150 calories a day if you were to go on a high protein diet. Big deal!!!! 150 calories is 1 cup of milk. It's 2 eggs. It's half a candy bar. 150 calories isn't going to make any difference whatsoever in helping you gain weight, build muscle mass, or burn fat.
Everyone keeps saying, "Oh, but you can eat more protein and not gain any fat because of the thermogenic effect". Give me a break........150 calories.....I rather just cut out 1 can of soda a day and get the same effect!
Don't be fooled by the "high-protein" fans. They just want you to go out and spend your hard-earned money on their bucket of protein. If you are looking to gain weight and build muscle, concentrate on the overall calories.
CALORIES BURNED BY TALKING:Sitting while talking
Including talking on the phone 46 an hour.
hahahahahah
Adam
It's possible (most probable actually) that the study group who consumed protein got their protein via liquid supplementation (protein shakes). If this was indeed the case I can understand the minimal thermogenic benefit. Solid foods are far more thermogenic then liquid foods as the body does not require a lot of energy to break down a liquid protein drink compared to a piece of steak, or a chicken. Solid foods produce a far better thermogenic benefit then liquids.
-
I'll say this: I was in the hospital for a digestive issue over the summer. i was told that I was not to eat Red Meat for awhile cause it is so much harder to digest and your digestive system has to work very hard. How can this not equate to the burning of calories during the digetive process?
Yes you are exactly right!
-
Actually, no I don't get your point. :-\
I simply asked Adam why carbs are essential. He's ignored or been unable to answer me. It's simple question, that I only want him to answer. If he can't answer it, it really throws the entire philosophy of "the Adonis Principles" out the window.
Such a poor argument.
Ok, lets do this then.
All Medicines are "Non-Essential", so lets stop the whole pharmeceutical production of drugs because they aren`t necessary to live.
How dumb can you really be? Can you tell me why All Medicine is Non-
Essential? See how dumb your question is?
-
Adam
It's possible (most probable actually) that the study group who consumed protein got their protein via liquid supplementation (protein shakes). If this was indeed the case I can understand the minimal thermogenic benefit. Solid foods are far more thermogenic then liquid foods as the body does not require a lot of energy to break down a liquid protein drink compared to a piece of steak, or a chicken. Solid foods produce a far better thermogenic benefit then liquids.
The calories burned by consuming protein is minimal. You would do better to watch TV for a few hours.
-
Actually Adam.....thats not true....the brain can use ketones for fuel:
Barry A Groves,
Independent researcher
OX7 6LP, www.second-opinions.co.uk
Send response to journal: BMJ 2005; 331: 925-c
Re: We don't need to spend more on research into Alzheimer's disease
The declines in mental faculties with old age, which are becoming increasingly common, are accepted as sad and heartrending, but ‘normal’: an inevitable consequence of old age. But this attitude is quite wrong as this decline need never happen and should never happen. Senility and its associated conditions are yet more examples of modern diseases which are very rare in primitive society and which are entirely preventable in ours.
Alzheimer’s disease, which only really appeared in the last century, is an increasingly prevalent, age-related degenerative brain disorder in Western societies. In Alzheimer’s disease, neurons in the brain regions that control learning and memory functions (hippocampus and basal forebrain) are selectively vulnerable.
Studies of postmortem brain tissue from Alzheimer’s have provided evidence that the condition has similar causes to other diseases classed together under the 'Metabolic Syndrome'. Recent data suggest that this disease can manifest systemic alterations in energy metabolism (increased insulin resistance and deregulation of glucose metabolism, for example). Evidence is emerging that dietary manipulation can prevent this devastating brain disorder.
It is argued by some that the recent growth in numbers of people succumbing to Alzheimer’s disease may be because it is a disease of the elderly and people are living longer. But there may also be other reasons: dietary reasons.
For example: NIDDM is associated with a range of serious conditions, such as heart disease, stroke and blindness. But diabetes is also associated with a deterioration of memory, cognition, speech memory, working memory and visual-spatial skills. Recent research suggests that it could also lead to Alzheimer’s disease and to a general decline in cognitive functions. NIDDM is caused entirely by a carbohydrate-based, 'healthy' diet.
For nine years a research team followed 824 Catholic priests and nuns, 127 of whom had diabetes. One hundred and fifty-one of them went on to develop Alzheimer’s.[1]The study team found that those who had diabetes were 65 percent more likely to develop Alzheimer’s.
Researcher Zoë Arvanitakis found that insulin in the blood stimulates a protein called ‘tau’ which tangles brain cells into Alzheimer knots. But the actual causal factor is likely to be our ‘healthy’ diet as that is what stimulates the production of insulin and is also, of course, the cause of diabetes.
The low cholesterol we are all supposed to strive for is another likely cause. Corrigan and colleagues writing in 1991 about the relief of Alzheimer’s Disease, ask that ‘strategies for increasing the delivery of cholesterol to the brain should be identified’. They recommend increasing fat intake.[2]
The Framingham Study gave confirmation to Corrigan’s work when it examined the relationship between total cholesterol and cognitive performance.[3] Four to 6 years after a 16- to 18-year surveillance period, cognitive tests were administered consisting of measures of learning, memory, attention, concentration, abstract reasoning, concept formation, and organizational abilities. The researchers found a significant linear association between the level of blood cholesterol and measures of verbal fluency, attention, concentration, abstract reasoning, and a composite score measuring multiple cognitive domains. Participants with ‘desirable’ cholesterol levels of less than 5.2 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) performed significantly less well than participants with cholesterol levels higher than 6.25 mmol/L (240 mg/dL). Dr. Penelope K. Elias from Boston University said that ‘It is not entirely surprising that lower cholesterol levels were associated with moderately lower levels of cognitive function, given [that] cholesterol is important in brain function.’
A third avenue also involves increasing fat intake. Two prospective studies reported that Alzheimer’s disease is less prevalent among those who consume fish; and other reports have linked low levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood with Alzheimer’s disease. In an epidemiological study, Morris and colleagues in Chicago, Illinois, USA, reported that the number of cases of Alzheimer’s disease was 60 percent lower in people who consumed fish once a week compared with those who rarely or never ate fish.[4] Although fatty fish is recommended as part of a ‘healthy’ diet, it is difficult to comply if one is already full up with starchy foods.
Dietary treatment
The brain uses a disproportionately large amount of energy for its weight, and it normally needs to extract it directly from glucose as it is unable to use fatty acids or amino acids. However, the brain can use ketones which are derived from dietary fats. This is how it survives during periods of prolonged fasting and starvation.
During the 1990s, diet-induced high blood levels of ketones were found to be effective for treatment of several rare genetic disorders involving impaired use of glucose or its metabolic products by brain cells.[5] Another team also found that ketones protect neurons from a heroin analogue which induces Parkinson’s disease, and a protein fragment which accumulates in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients.[6] More than that, addition of ketones alone actually increased the number of surviving neurons from the hippocampus which suggests that ketones may even act as growth factors for neurons.
The low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet relies on ketone bodies to supply the bulk of the body’s energy needs. We know that ketogenic diets are very effective treatments for many other chronic degenerative medical conditions. The evidence is that Alzheimer’s disease may also be successfully treated and, more importantly, prevented with a low- carbohydrate, high-fat, ketogenic diet.
However, all current official dietary advice is that low- carbohydrate, high-fat diets are 'unhealthy'. That is demonstrably untrue, but until current dietary advice is seen for the disaster it really is, we can expect the incidence of diseases such as Alzheimer's to increase.
We don't need to spend more on research into Alzheimer's disease, just to consider the work already done -- and revise current dietary advice.
References
1. Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS, Bienias JL, et al. Diabetes mellitus and risk of Alzheimer disease and decline in cognitive function. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 661-6.
2. Corrigan FM, et al. Dietary supplementation with zinc sulphate, sodium selenite and fatty acids in early dementia of Alzheimer’s Type II: Effects on lipids. J Nutr Med 1991; 2: 265‑71.
3. Elias PK, Elias MF, D’Agostino RB, et al. Serum Cholesterol and Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Heart Study. Psychosomatic Medicine 2005; 67:24–30.
4. Morris MC, Evans DA, Bienias JL, et al. Consumption of fish and n- 3 fatty acids and risk of incident Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol 2003;60:940-946.
5. VanItallie TB, Nufert TH. Ketones: metabolism’s ugly duckling. Nutr Rev 2003; 61: 327-41.
6. Kashiwaya Y, Takeshima T, Mori N, et al. D-b-Hydroxybutyrate protects neurons in models of Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease. PNAS 2000: 97: 5440-4.
Your brain can survive on just water for extended periods. Would you recommend that as well?
Using Ketones for the brain is a poor choice. AT least you can be assured no airline pilot or NASA employee would be allwed to use ketones to fuel the brain. :)
-
i can't believe anyone would argue that the brain only uses carbs for fuel. ketogenic diets have been around for decades, i've done one myself. it's not great for getting shredded but for the first chunk of fat loss it's gold.
moreover, adam neglects all kinds of things in his BS "calorie is a calorie" theory. ignoring the fact that the macronutrients are treated VERY differently in the body (otherwise you could eat M&Ms all day and feel the same as if you stuck with lean hamburgers on wheat buns), he tosses out things like "insulin response" or "the difference between eating solids and liquids".
adumb has taken the hardline approach that nothing makes a difference, your body needs X calories in a day and as long as you eat 'em you're fine. try this experiment sometime. first thing in the morning, make an omelette with a few whole eggs, low fat cheese, veggies, then have a big glass of milk. count the calories and see how long it takes you to feel hungry again.
now do the same thing the next day, but drink pepsi for ALL those calories. caffeine free if you think that'll skew the results. see what happens.
As long as you get the USRDA you are fine.
-
Your brain can survive on just water for extended periods. Would you recommend that as well?
Using Ketones for the brain is a poor choice. AT least you can be assured no airline pilot or NASA employee would be allwed to use ketones to fuel the brain. :)
Your brain may survive.....but its not the H20 thats fueling it. I was merely pointing out that the brain has the capability of utilizing other sources for energy rather than carbohydrates.
As far as NASA or airline pilots being allowed....thats not true. I do have patients in my office who are pilots with Southwest, NWA, and United who do follow a low carb approach to eating. They are not getting 'keto-stripped' every now and then to make sure they are not using ketones for energy.
In any event...just wanted to point that out about the brain.
-
Such a poor argument.
Ok, lets do this then.
All Medicines are "Non-Essential", so lets stop the whole pharmeceutical production of drugs because they aren`t necessary to live.
How dumb can you really be? Can you tell me why All Medicine is Non-
Essential? See how dumb your question is?
Are carbohydrates need or not?
-
Such a poor argument.
Ok, lets do this then.
All Medicines are "Non-Essential", so lets stop the whole pharmeceutical production of drugs because they aren`t necessary to live.
How dumb can you really be? Can you tell me why All Medicine is Non-
Essential? See how dumb your question is?
You still have yet to answer the question you queer elf..... >:(
-
The calories burned by consuming protein is minimal. You would do better to watch TV for a few hours.
Dude, what can I say....
You're superhuman!
-
Your brain may survive.....but its not the H20 thats fueling it. I was merely pointing out that the brain has the capability of utilizing other sources for energy rather than carbohydrates.
As far as NASA or airline pilots being allowed....thats not true. I do have patients in my office who are pilots with Southwest, NWA, and United who do follow a low carb approach to eating. They are not getting 'keto-stripped' every now and then to make sure they are not using ketones for energy.
In any event...just wanted to point that out about the brain.
That is going to change VERY soon a few more studies are being conducted as we speak. Here is one:
http://www.universityrelations.und.edu/discovery/fall_2003/html/4.html
Exploring how diet affects pilot performance
What pilots eat and how it affects their performance is the subject of unique, collaborative research being conducted by one of the dual-career faculty couples at the University of North Dakota.
The researchers are Paul Lindseth, associate dean for academics at the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences, and Glenda Lindseth, professor and director of research for the College of Nursing.
Paul, a former pilot and instructor in the U.S. Air Force, is currently a flight instructor at UND. He long has been concerned about the performance level of students as it relates to nutrition habits. Glenda, a registered dietitian and registered nurse, has a special interest in the effects of eating patterns on performance. The two have worked together in a series of four earlier studies on the subject.
The four-year, $621,310 project is funded by the U.S. Army Biomedical Research Command.
The Lindseths say their research could make significant contributions to understanding effects of diet on cognition and performance, thereby helping decrease the number of human factor errors related to diet, nutrition and health.
The study is designed to determine cognition and flight performance scores of pilots receiving a non-manipulated control diet, high-protein diet, high-fat diet, or carbohydrate diet. Researchers analyze for differences in flight performance and cognition scores among groups of pilots on the four diets.
Previous studies have found that both passengers and pilots who ate high-protein or dairy products immediately before flying tended to feel worse. A less conclusive finding is that salty foods figure into air sickness. And there is an indication that higher-carbohydrate foods, such as bread and pasta, along with fruit, are preferable before flights.
Paul Lindseth says airsickness can affect 25 to 30 percent of pilots. He says flying has been around 100 years, but only in the past 25 years has there been a focus on the human element. Yet, eighty percent of accidents result from human error.
Consultants and collaborators in the study are Richard Jensen, director of the Aviation Psychology Laboratory at Ohio State University; Warren Jensen, director of aeromedical research at the Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at UND; Thomas Petros, professor of psychology at UND; and Gladys Block, professor of public health nutrition at the University of California-Berkeley.
Also involved are undergraduate research assistants from the UND Honors Program and highly talented high school students funded by North Dakota EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research).
UND: A leader in research as well as flight training
As the operator of the one of the largest and most prestigious university-level programs in aviation, the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences is a natural place to conduct research on pilot performance, says its dean, Bruce Smith.
In recognition of these capabilities, the Federal Aviation Administration has designated the School as one of the nation’s Air Transportation Centers of Excellence for General Aviation.
Affiliated with the School is the UND Aerospace Foundation, which provides a vehicle for developing partnerships with external entities, including private industry and foreign governments. Smith said the Aerospace Foundation first became known for its development of new training methodologies for airline pilots, but it has broadened its research agenda over the years.
-
Adonis, I am a pilot, and the first thing we do, is eat carbs.. Why, don't know, but we do.
Air force Pilots are on so much speed, trust me, look up go pills on the internet.
Special forces take viagra at high elevations.
-
Adonis, please enlighten me on why carbs are essential...
-
Adonis, please enlighten me on why carbs are essential...
Been trying to get him to answer that question and what makes them essential for a week now. I guess he can't copy and paste it, so he won't answer at all....
-
Adonis, please enlighten me on why carbs are essential...
This isn`t an argument of essential vs. nonessential.
No vaccines or medicines are essential.
Does that mean we should not use them either?
-
Such a poor argument.
Ok, lets do this then.
All Medicines are "Non-Essential", so lets stop the whole pharmeceutical production of drugs because they aren`t necessary to live.
How dumb can you really be? Can you tell me why All Medicine is Non-
Essential? See how dumb your question is?
Bump for youngblood and Mindspin
-
Are carbohydrates need or not?
Essential if you want to perform optimally.
-
This isn`t an argument of essential vs. nonessential.
No vaccines or medicines are essential.
Does that mean we should not use them either?
yes vaccinations are bad news and much research is linking them to disease from auto-immune to autism(especially). medicines should not be taken, the human body is meant to be healthy, it was meant to stay healthy. there are alterior options to antibiotics without the sides on beneficial bacteria. if your sick you should take medicine, if your not sick absolutely not. side effects, and toxins will weaken the body.
obviously pilots should take carbs, what difference does that make to the discussion?
-
This isn`t an argument of essential vs. nonessential.
No vaccines or medicines are essential.
Does that mean we should not use them either?
Uh, TA, unless I'm missing some esoteric point you are trying to make, or you hold a special meaning for what is defined as 'essential,' I would say that those with Type 1 diabetes would disagree. Smallpox, though not eradicated, has certainly been controlled. I could go on and on. ???
-
This isn`t an argument of essential vs. nonessential.
No vaccines or medicines are essential.
Does that mean we should not use them either?
Didn't you say that protein is not essential, but carbs are? Which is it?
-
This isn`t an argument of essential vs. nonessential.
No vaccines or medicines are essential.
Does that mean we should not use them either?
sorry but: Worst arguement ever. Go have a kid and don't get him any vaccines and see how long he lasts, have fun with that.
-
Bump for youngblood and Mindspin
We asked you first dumbass. You're the one avoiding the question. >:(
Medicines are not food. You can live without them if you have enough of the essential stuff keeping you healthy. If you don't get sick, because you have the right vitamins and minerals protecting you, then there is no need for medicines. This I know, having been sick once in 10 years. And I still used ZERO medicine to recover from the illness.
So, now, answer Mindspin and my question....
Didn't you say that protein is not essential, but carbs are? Which is it?
-
Didn't you say that protein is not essential, but carbs are? Which is it?
Nope.
-
Nope.
How's that gravity suit doin'? ;D
-
sorry but: Worst arguement ever. Go have a kid and don't get him any vaccines and see how long he lasts, have fun with that.
Depends on the region the kid would be from.
Do you think Ben Franklin vaccinated himself? LOLOL
or Thomas Peters?
Thomas Peters 111 354 April 6,1745 March 26,1857
-
flip flop flip flop.....
I'm guessing True Adonis is a Republican.
-
flip flop flip flop.....
I'm guessing True Adonis is a Republican.
Nope.
-
all the profs I talked to who are into the performance nutrition field all say that most people take in way to much protein. A gram per lb is apparently way too much. However this was for athletic performance, not hypertrophy so it could differ.
-
sorry but: Worst arguement ever. Go have a kid and don't get him any vaccines and see how long he lasts, have fun with that.
Actually Al he will last a long time. For example....polio was on the DECLINE when the polio vaccine came out. It is actually making a comeback....hmm....lot of good the vaccine is doing.
-
It is actually making a comeback....
Where is your proof of its comeback?
-
Where is your proof of its comeback?
You have the internet available to you...do a search. Not too difficult is it?
DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."
Dr J Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US Food
and Drug Administration
"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and
ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation."
Dr R. Mendelsohn, Author and Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)
"In our opinion, there is now sufficient evidence of immune malfunction following current vaccination programmes to anticipate growing public demands for research investigation into alternative methods of prevention of infectious disease."
Dr's H. Buttram and J. Hoffman (Vaccinations and Immune Malfunctions)
"All vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the blood
into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and leukemia...Vaccines DO predispose to cancer and leukaemia."
Professor L.C. Vincent, Founder of Bioelectronics
"Every vaccine carries certain hazards and can produce inward reactions in some people...in general, there are more vaccine complications than is generally appreciated."
Professor George Dick, London University
"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection."
Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, Decemebr 7th 1985)
"In addition to the many obvious cases of mortality from these practises,
there are also long-term hazards which are almost impossible to estimate
accurately...the inherent danger of of all vaccine procedures should be a
deterrent to their unnecessary or unjustifiable use."
Sir Graham Wilson (The Hazards of Immunisation)
"Laying aside the very real possibility that the various vaccines are
contaminated with animal viruses and may cause serious illness later in life (multiple sclerosis, cancer, leukaemia, etc) we must consider whether the vaccines really work for their intended purpose."
Dr W.C. Douglas (Cutting Edge, May 1990)
"The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used"
Dr James A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA
With reference to Smallpox;
"Vaccination is a monstrosity, a misbegotten offspring of error and
ignorance, it should have no place in either hygiene or medicine...Believe not in vaccination, it is a world-wide delusion, an unscientific practise, a fatal superstition with consequences measured today by tears and sorrow without end."
Professor Chas Rauta, University of Perguia, Italy , (New York Medical Journal July 1899)
"Vaccination does not protect, it actually renders its subjects more
susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they contracted after being vaccinated."
Dr J.W. Hodge (The Vaccination Superstition)
"It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus - and it is usually from the pustule end of the dead smallpox victim … it is unthinkable that you can inject that into a little child and in any way improve its health. What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of serum immunisation, if we could by any means build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we can't do it."
Dr William Howard Hay (lecture to Medical Freedom Society, June 25th 1937)
"Immunisation against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself."
Professor Ari Zuckerman, World Health Organisation
With reference to Whooping Cough;
"There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence."
Professor Gordon Stewart, University of Glasgow (Here's Health, March 1980)
"My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the
nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the US each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children. The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is the most likely villain , but it could also be one or more of the others."
Dr R Mendelsohn, Author and Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)
"The worst vaccine of all is the whooping cough vaccine...it is responsible for a lot of deaths and for a lot of infants suffering irreversible brain damage.."
Dr Archie Kalokerinos, Author and Vaccine Researcher (Natural Health Convention, Stanwell Tops, NSW, Australia 1987)
With reference to Polio;
"Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin polio vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue has been directly responsible for the major increase in leukaemia in this country."
Dr F. Klenner, Polio Researcher, USA
"No batch of vaccine can be proved to be safe before it is given to
children"
Surgeon General Leonard Scheele (AMA Convention 1955, USA)
"Live virus vaccines against influenza and paralytic polio, for example, may in each instance cause the disease it is intended to prevent..."
Dr Jonas Salk, developer of first polio vaccine (Science 4/4/77 Abstracts)
-
ever wonder why some government officals in the US and canada are trying to have mandatory vaccines? Maybe all the conspiracy theorists are actually right.
-
He would not only feel miserable, he would perform miserably. The only thing that fuels the brain and muscles are Carbohydrates.
This form of unnessecary self-torture will also lower leptin to an insatiable degree.
What makes you think that ketones can't fuel the brain and the muscles?
-Hedge
-
vaccinations are bad, carbs are not essential.
fats are ketogenic
protein is glucogenic and ketogenic. the CHO it takes to make glucose can be manufactured by both protein and fat. adonis is wrong as usual.
-
What makes you think that ketones can't fuel the brain and the muscles?
-Hedge
Its a poor choice to have ketones fuel the brain. VERY poor.
-
Its a poor choice to have ketones fuel the brain. VERY poor.
You may want to read this Adam: http://www.waynerad.com/NutritionReviewsKetones.pdf
-
You may want to read this Adam: http://www.waynerad.com/NutritionReviewsKetones.pdf
July 6, 2000 - Study Warns of Potential Dangers of Ketogenic Diet May Lead to Life-Threatening Heart Problems
CINCINNATI -- A new study published in the Journal of Neurology warns of potential dangers of a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet sometimes used to treat epileptic seizures. The study, conducted by physicians at Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati, indicates children on the ketogenic diet may be at risk for developing potentially life-threatening heart problems.
The ketogenic diet was designed in the 1920s as a treatment option for those with intractable epilepsy -- seizures that didn't respond to standard medications. The diet produces a state in the body that simulates starvation. It is based on the belief that starvation and dehydration can reduce the frequency of seizures.
Until now, the diet was thought to have few side effects. But the Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati researchers initiated a study after a 5-year-old patient on the diet developed dilated cardiomyopathy (an enlarged, poorly functioning heart muscle) and a prolonged QT interval (an electrical abnormality that can lead to a fast heart rhythm and sudden death).
The researchers found that out of 21 children on the ketogenic diet, 15 percent had these abnormalities. When taken off of the diet, the problems went away.
The problems may be related to a substance called beta-hydroxybutyrate and the high level of acid in the blood with which it is associated, according to Thomas Best, M.D., a physician in the Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati Cardiology Division and the study's lead author.
Beta-hydroxybutyrate levels are higher in people on the ketogenic diet, and children with the highest levels of beta-hydroxybutyrate had the most severe heart problems.
"While it's too early to suggest patients should be taken off the diet completely, they should be followed closely with electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, which will detect the complications," says Dr. Best.
The research team at Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati hopes to perform a larger study with more patients to get a better idea of how widespread the complications are and to determine the cause of the problems.
-
true adonis how much protein do you eat per day?
-
You may want to read this Adam: http://www.waynerad.com/NutritionReviewsKetones.pdf
Are there any side effects?
A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. This can worsen if a child is sick at the same time as the diet is started. Make sure to encourage carbohydrate-free fluids during illnesses.
Other side effects that might occur if the person stays on the diet for a long time are:
kidney stones
high cholesterol levels in the blood
dehydration
constipation
slowed growth or weight gain
bone fractures
Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid.
There are no anticonvulsants that should be stopped while on the diet. Topamax (topiramate) and Zonegran (zonisamide) do not have a higher risk of acidosis or kidney stones while on the diet. Depakote (valproic acid) does not lead to carnitine deficiency or other difficulties while on the diet either. Medication levels do not change while on the diet according to recent studies.
-
true adonis how much protein do you eat per day?
Depends.
I get the USRDA for sure everyday.
Yesterday I made a Rachel Ray recipe that called for 4 different kind of meats and 4 different kinds of cheeses. I also had some soutwestern style Chicken, Ice Cream, Cookies.
I probably had a lot of protein yesterday.
-
Depends.
I get the USRDA for sure everyday.
Yesterday I made a Rachel Ray recipe that called for 4 different kind of meats and 4 different kinds of cheeses. I also had some soutwestern style Chicken, Ice Cream, Cookies.
I probably had a lot of protein yesterday.
bad adonis
-
Are there any side effects?
A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. This can worsen if a child is sick at the same time as the diet is started. Make sure to encourage carbohydrate-free fluids during illnesses.
Other side effects that might occur if the person stays on the diet for a long time are:
kidney stones
high cholesterol levels in the blood
dehydration
constipation
slowed growth or weight gain
bone fractures
Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid.
There are no anticonvulsants that should be stopped while on the diet. Topamax (topiramate) and Zonegran (zonisamide) do not have a higher risk of acidosis or kidney stones while on the diet. Depakote (valproic acid) does not lead to carnitine deficiency or other difficulties while on the diet either. Medication levels do not change while on the diet according to recent studies.
MONSTER SIDE EFFECTS, EPIC LACK OF ENERGY AND SAVAGE REDUCED BRAIN-FUNCTION
-
The only thing that fuels the brain and muscles are Carbohydrates.
Its a poor choice to have ketones fuel the brain. VERY poor.
Flip flop there you go again.
First you say that the ONLY thing that fuels the brain is carbohydrates.
Then you flip and say it's a poor choice.
Adonis, if you're going to lie or whatever it is you call what you are doing, at least be good at it.
-
Flip flop there you go again.
First you say that the ONLY thing that fuels the brain is carbohydrates.
Then you flip and say it's a poor choice.
Adonis, if you're going to lie or whatever it is you call what you are doing, at least be good at it.
::)
-
Flip flop there you go again.
First you say that the ONLY thing that fuels the brain is carbohydrates.
Then you flip and say it's a poor choice.
Adonis, if you're going to lie or whatever it is you call what you are doing, at least be good at it.
Adonis, you just got "youngbloodowned"... ;D
-
Adonis, you just got "youngbloodowned"... ;D
does that involve dying of roid induced BP issues?
-
::)
You dumb guy.....it's laid out right in front of you. No post altering, preserved by the board, and there is no way that anybody but you can deny you said it.
So, explain to all of us-who know what we are talking about- and tell us how in the first post you say it's the ONLY source for the brain. Then in the next post you say that it's a POOR CHOICE. The word "choice" being the operative word, which implies that there is another source to use.....so what source would that be since in the previous post you said it yourself- "Carbohydrates are the only thing that fuels the brain."
Make up your mind. Swallow a gun while you're at it too. >:(
-
MONSTER SIDE EFFECTS, EPIC LACK OF ENERGY AND SAVAGE REDUCED BRAIN-FUNCTION
Thats a rather intelligent post you have there.
-
Thats a rather intelligent post you have there.
I agree with you, I'm really smart.
-
You dumb ####.....it's laid out right in front of you. No post altering, preserved by the board, and there is no way that anybody but you can deny you said it.
So, explain to all of us-who know what we are talking about- and tell us how in the first post you say it's the ONLY source for the brain. Then in the next post you say that it's a POOR CHOICE. The word "choice" being the operative word, which implies that there is another source to use.....so what source would that be since in the previous post you said it yourself- "Carbohydrates are the only thing that fuels the brain."
Make up your mind. Swallow a gun while you're at it too. >:(
Carbohydrates are the only thing that fuels the brain if you want to live optimally.
Be my guest. Starve yourself of Carbohydrates. I don`t really care what you do.
-
Carbohydrates are the only thing that fuels the brain if you want to live optimally.
Be my guest. Starve yourself of Carbohydrates. I don`t really care what you do.
But I thought you said a calorie is a calorie??? Carbohydrates = Fats = Proteins. You just disproved your own principles.
-
But I thought you said a calorie is a calorie??? Carbohydrates = Fats = Proteins. You just disproved your own principles.
Adonis I don't know how you deal with these people.
-
Adonis I don't know how you deal with these people.
He logs on as a different user....
-
Adonis I don't know how you deal with these people.
They are unbelievably uneducated.
I feel sorry for anyone who comes in contact with most of them.
-
But I thought you said a calorie is a calorie??? Carbohydrates = Fats = Proteins. You just disproved your own principles.
A watt it a watt. A joule is a joule. A Kelvin is a Kelvin.
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie...it's not even a debate.
It's like saying a pound is a pound.....of what?
Under Adonis' thinking, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of cement.
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie...it's not even a debate.
It's like saying a pound is a pound.....of what?
Under Adonis' thinking, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of cement.
It is still a pound.
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie...it's not even a debate.
It's like saying a pound is a pound.....of what?
Under Adonis' thinking, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of cement.
yes everybody knows a pound of cement weighs way more than a pound of feathers. Adonis is so stupid he doesn't even realize that.
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie...it's not even a debate.
It's like saying a pound is a pound.....of what?
Under Adonis' thinking, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of cement.
A calorie is a calorie.
I have a Question for you.
How many Chicken breasts would equal a gallon of Gasoline?
-
83, 8 oz. chicken breast is the same as a gallon of gasoline.
-
Carbohydrates are the only thing that fuels the brain if you want to live optimally.
Be my guest. Starve yourself of Carbohydrates. I don`t really care what you do.
So now you throw in a THIRD opinion?!?!
You're saying it's not about carbohydrates being the ONLY source of fuel for the brain. It's not about the brain having another choice of fuel (ketones). But now it's about how the brain will function on an optimal level?
Snappy comeback for sure. However, I myself have starved of carbohydrates to see what would happen. All in all, I feel that I function better on a much lower carbohydrate diet.
However, you're not getting the issue. In this case, it's not about how people function on what diet they use. It's about YOU contradicting yourself endlessly because you can't even realize the crap that spews out of your mouth from one moment to the next.
-
What is a Calorie?
A calorie is a unit of energy. We tend to associate calories with food, but they apply to anything containing energy. For example, a gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories.
Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy, or heat, it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). One calorie is equal to 4.184 joules, a common unit of energy used in the physical sciences.
Most of us think of calories in relation to food, as in "This can of soda has 200 calories." It turns out that the calories on a food package are actually kilocalories (1,000 calories = 1 kilocalorie). The word is sometimes capitalized to show the difference, but usually not. A food calorie contains 4,184 joules. A can of soda containing 200 food calories contains 200,000 regular calories, or 200 kilocalories. A gallon of gasoline contains 31,000 kilocalories.
The same applies to exercise -- when a fitness chart says you burn about 100 calories for every mile you jog, it means 100 kilocalories. For the duration of this article, when we say "calorie," we mean "kilocalorie."
-
What Calories Do
Human beings need energy to survive -- to breathe, move, pump blood -- and they acquire this energy from food.
Caloric Breakdown
1 g Carbohydrates: 4 calories
1 g Protein: 4 calories
1 g Fat: 9 calories
The number of calories in a food is a measure of how much potential energy that food possesses. A gram of carbohydrates has 4 calories, a gram of protein has 4 calories, and a gram of fat has 9 calories. Foods are a compilation of these three building blocks. So if you know how many carbohydrates, fats and proteins are in any given food, you know how many calories, or how much energy, that food contains.
If we look at the nutritional label on the back of a packet of maple-and-brown-sugar oatmeal, we find that it has 160 calories. This means that if we were to pour this oatmeal into a dish, set the oatmeal on fire and get it to burn completely (which is actually pretty tricky), the reaction would produce 160 kilocalories (remember: food calories are kilocalories) -- enough energy to raise the temperature of 160 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius. If we look closer at the nutritional label, we see that our oatmeal has 2 grams of fat, 4 grams of protein and 32 grams of carbohydrates, producing a total of 162 calories (apparently, food manufacturers like to round down). Of these 162 calories, 18 come from fat (9 cal x 2 g), 16 come from protein (4 cal x 4 g) and 128 come from carbohydrates (4 cal x 32 g).
Our bodies "burn" the calories in the oatmeal through metabolic processes, by which enzymes break the carbohydrates into glucose and other sugars, the fats into glycerol and fatty acids and the proteins into amino acids (see How Food Works for details). These molecules are then transported through the bloodstream to the cells, where they are either absorbed for immediate use or sent on to the final stage of metabolism in which they are reacted with oxygen to release their stored energy.
-
A calorie is NOT a calorie...it's not even a debate.
It's like saying a pound is a pound.....of what?
Under Adonis' thinking, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of cement.
Chick- In Adonis' defense, a pound IS a pound (using your theory above).
A pound of something will always equal a pound of something else. However, it's the VOLUME of something that differs.
Ever open a box of cereal, and the label says it will be X amount of weight, yet when you look inside the box it's half empty. Due to settling the volume of the item is different, but the weight is still the same.
So, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound to cement. But you would need 10 billion feathers to equal that tiny slab of cement.
-
So now you throw in a THIRD opinion?!?!
You're saying it's not about carbohydrates being the ONLY source of fuel for the brain. It's not about the brain having another choice of fuel (ketones). But now it's about how the brain will function on an optimal level?
Snappy comeback for sure. However, I myself have starved of carbohydrates to see what would happen. All in all, I feel that I function better on a much lower carbohydrate diet.
However, you're not getting the issue. In this case, it's not about how people function on what diet they use. It's about YOU contradicting yourself endlessly because you can't even realize the crap that spews out of your mouth from one moment to the next.
Unlike you most people strive for optimal brain function. You are clearly satisfied with low performance.
-
He would not only feel miserable, he would perform miserably. The only thing that fuels the brain and muscles are Carbohydrates.
This form of unnessecary self-torture will also lower leptin to an insatiable degree.
You can not eat carbs and eat fat and that fuels the body also. A great trick in eating right is at a meal when you eat carbs, keep the fat low. When you eat fat in a meal, keep the carbs low. and not every diet is sufficient in protein for bodybuilding, your whacked.
-
Lots of people wonder if it matters where their calories come from. At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no -- a calorie is a calorie. A protein calorie is no different from a fat calorie -- they are simply units of energy. As long as you burn what you eat, you will maintain your weight; and as long as you burn more than you eat, you'll lose weight.
-
A calorie is a calorie.
I have a Question for you.
How many Chicken breasts would equal a gallon of Gasoline?
who gives a fuck?
Go eat a lb. of chicken and then a lb. of gasoline....let me know what the results are.
-
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/calorie.gif)
-
who gives a fuck?
Go eat a lb. of chicken and then a lb. of gasoline....let me know what the results are.
you are what you eat and most of us want to be diesel, so that is good advice bob.
-
Chick- In Adonis' defense, a pound IS a pound (using your theory above).
A pound of something will always equal a pound of something else. However, it's the VOLUME of something that differs.
Ever open a box of cereal, and the label says it will be X amount of weight, yet when you look inside the box it's half empty. Due to settling the volume of the item is different, but the weight is still the same.
So, a pound of feathers is the same as a pound to cement. But you would need 10 billion feathers to equal that tiny slab of cement.
I'm not disputing that a pound is a pound....my point is that they both may weigh the same, but are two very different things....and they are two very different things to the body.
-
Your Body's Efficiency
Have you ever wondered why, for so many people (and especially for anyone older than 30 years old), weight gain seems to be a fact of life? It's because the human body is way too efficient! It just does not take that much energy to maintain the human body at rest; and when exercising, the human body is amazingly frugal when it comes to turning food into motion.
At rest (for example, while sitting and watching television), the human body burns only about 12 calories per pound of body weight per day (26 calories per kilogram). That means that if you weigh 150 pounds (68 kg), your body uses only about:
150 X 12 = 1,800 calories per day
Twelve calories per pound per day is a rough estimate -- see How Calories Work for details.
Those 1,800 calories are used to do everything you need to stay alive:
They keep your heart beating and lungs breathing.
They keep your internal organs operating properly.
They keep your brain running.
They keep your body warm.
In motion, the human body also uses energy very efficiently. For example, a person running a marathon (26 miles or 42 km) burns only about 2,600 calories. In other words, you burn only about 100 calories per mile (about 62 calories per km) when you are running.
You can see just how efficient the human body is if you compare your body to a car. A typical car in the United States gets between 15 and 30 miles per gallon of gasoline (6 to 12 km/L). A gallon of gas contains about 31,000 calories. That means that if a human being could drink gasoline instead of eating hamburgers to take in calories, a human being could run 26 miles on about one-twelfth of a gallon of gas (0.3 L). In other words, a human being gets more than 300 miles per gallon (120 km/L)! If you put a human being on a bicycle to increase the efficiency, a human being can get well over 1,000 miles per gallon (more than 500 km/L)!
That level of efficiency is the main reason why it is so easy to gain weight
-
Lots of people wonder if it matters where their calories come from. At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no -- a calorie is a calorie. A protein calorie is no different from a fat calorie -- they are simply units of energy. As long as you burn what you eat, you will maintain your weight; and as long as you burn more than you eat, you'll lose weight.
And you got your degree in Nutrition Sciences from.....?
-
Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet.
Thats a lie.
Dr Michael Colgan showed the results of study after study in "optimum sports nutrition" that completely flies in the face of this statement
-
Unlike you most people strive for optimal brain function. You are clearly satisfied with low performance.
Maybe you should stick to something you do decently....post about Billy Smith and the infamous Flex Wheeler Body Fat Composition at Golds. But I'll just report you to a Moderator like I did last time, since you're doing what you're doing now- flooding the board with useless bantering.
-
And you got your degree in Nutrition Sciences from.....?
Would you really trust anyone who gets a degree in "Nutrition Sciences." That sounds like it's about one step up from a degree in cable repair.
-
I'm not disputing that a pound is a pound....my point is that they both may weigh the same, but are two very different things....and they are two very different things to the body.
I agree with you Chick, but by your first post (the one I quoted) I wasn't sure where you were coming from.
-
Thats a lie.
Dr Michael Colgan showed the results of study after study in "optimum sports nutrition" that completely flies in the face of this statement
Which peer reviewed journal would one find this persons studies and articles?
-
The neurotransmitters in your brain are made of PROTEIN.
Without those....you would be pyschotic....regardless of your carb levels
-
Maybe you should stick to something you do decently....post about Billy Smith and the infamous Flex Wheeler Body Fat Composition at Golds. But I'll just report you to a Moderator like I did last time, since you're doing what you're doing now- flooding the board with useless bantering.
0.0% BF (Brain eFficiency)
-
I agree with you Chick, but by your first post (the one I quoted) I wasn't sure where you were coming from.
Im coming from the same place you are...Adonis is nuts.
-
Im coming from the same place you are...Adonis is nuts.
You just aren`t that bright.
It quite allright to be a simpleton. I`m used to dealing with them on a daily basis. Almost everyone I meet is a simpleton.
-
You just aren`t that bright.
It quite allright to be a simpleton. I`m used to dealing with them on a daily basis. Almost everyone I meet is a simpleton.
That's the law of averages for you
-
who gives a fuck?
Go eat a lb. of chicken and then a lb. of gasoline....let me know what the results are.
Still waiting for your response Mr. cutty/pastey...
-
Almost everyone I meet is a simpleton.
You must look into the mirror a lot.
-
Which peer reviewed journal would one find this persons studies and articles?
(http://www.optimumfitness.com/more/images/osn1a.gif)
Read this book and check his references (pages of them). He has updated versions too.
-
Still waiting for your response Mr. cutty/pastey...
you obviously stumped him
-
That's the law of averages for you
Did you know that that 50 percent of Americans think the earth is only 10,000 years old or newer?
-
Im coming from the same place you are...Adonis is nuts.
No disagreement there!!! ;D
-
Did you know that that 50 percent of Americans think the earth is only 10,000 years old or newer?
Did you know that 99.9% of GetBig thinks you're a close-minded, idiotic pompous ass that can't accept anything that does not concur with your own opinion?
-
Adonis do you think two genetic clones one eating 1800cals of lard and the other 1800cals of chicken will look the fairly same if the follow identical training programs for 12 weeks? I don't think so. A calorie simply is not a calorie in human physiology but it is the same in other applications.
-
Did you know that that 50 percent of Americans think the earth is only 10,000 years old or newer?
These people probably don't know that there are numbers larger then 10,000.
-
This ought to make EVERYONE sick!
Americans still hold faith in divine creation
By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 9, 2006
Much of the nation still takes stock in the book of Genesis.
Eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in some capacity. A Gallup Poll reveals that 46 percent think God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process.
Only 13 percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention.
"There has been surprisingly little change over the last 24 years in how Americans respond," pollster Frank Newport said.
The survey marks the seventh time that Gallup has queried Americans about creation beliefs. Since 1982, between 44 percent and 47 percent have consistently agreed that God created man "as is," while between 35 percent and 40 percent said man evolved with God's guidance. The idea of strict evolution without God has proved the least popular, cited by 9 percent to 13 percent of the respondents over the years.
The beliefs intensify among certain demographics. The survey found that 56 percent of Republican respondents, compared with 43 percent of Democrats, said God created humans in their present form. Church attendance held sway over the partisan groups. Among Republicans who attended services weekly, the number rose to 67 percent. Among churchgoing Democrats, it rose to 57 percent.
Findings were similar in the overall population.
"Almost two-thirds of Americans who attend church at least once a week believe that humans were created 'as is' within the last 10,000 years or so, compared to just 29 percent of those who say they never attend church," Mr. Newport said.
"About three-quarters of those with a postgraduate degree say humans developed over millions of years from less-advanced forms of life, while 22 percent chose the 'created in present form' option," he said.
Things were more or less in the middle for those who attended church once a month, with 50 percent saying mankind developed from other life forms and 45 percent citing creation by God.
Women edged out men for their creationism beliefs. More than half of women, 51 percent, compared with 39 percent of men, said God created man in present form. Age also played a role. Fifty-one percent of respondents older than 65 believe in the role of God in creation. That compared with 43 percent of those 50 to 64 years old, 49 percent of those 30 to 49, and 43 percent of those 18 to 29.
The findings are based on two polls of 1,001 adults, each conducted May 8 to 11 this year and Nov. 7 to 10, 2004, with a margin of error of two percentage points.
Other polls had similar findings. A Pew poll of 2,000 adults released in August revealed that 42 percent held strict creationist views, while 48 percent said humans evolved over time -- 18 percent of the sample said the process was "guided by a supreme being." Two-thirds of the group were open to teaching creationism in schools.
-
Adonis do you think two genetic clones one eating 1800cals of lard and the other 1800cals of chicken will look the fairly same if the follow identical training programs for 12 weeks? I don't think so. A calorie simply is not a calorie in human physiology but it is the same in other applications.
They would look the same if they did the same activities. Their bodily functions would vary a bit. It not feasible for someone to ingest just one type of nutrient.
Just get the USRDA. That is all you need for optimum health.
-
Did you know that that 50 percent of Americans think the earth is only 10,000 years old or newer?
The earth is milions of years old...but people that were created in God's image (including you) have only been here for 6000 years or so.
There was life here before....dinosaurs and other animals...but they were wiped out (hence the fossil record)
Satan was thrown out of heaven and hit the earth....killing everything
The ancient hebrew texts in the Book of Genesis and Isaiah indicate that there was a world that was destroyed before God re-created it.
-
What has that to do with a calorie???
Also Mr Adonis, can you please give credit which websites and journals you get your articles from? Makes further reading for people much more convenient.
-
They would look the same if they did the same activities. Their bodily functions would vary a bit. It not feasible for someone to ingest just one type of nutrient.
Just get the USRDA. That is all you need for optimum health.
how about take the same twins and give one 1800 cals of ice cream and take another and give him 1800 cals of chicken breast.
-
Nice quote from the Washington Times, a notoriously far-left newspaper whose sole agenda is anti-conservative.
-
This will make you even sicker!
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 10 August 2006
02:01 pm ET
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
Evolving Issue
Top 10 Missing Links
Discoveries that have helped build the puzzle of mankind's evolution.
Creation Myths
Legends that helped define civilizations past and present.
Vestigal Organs
Darwin argued that useless limbs and leftover organs are evidence of evolution.
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure.
The study found that over the past 20 years:
The percentage of U.S. adults who accept evolution declined from 45 to 40 percent.
The percentage overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48 to 39 percent, however.
And the percentage of adults who were unsure increased, from 7 to 21 percent.
Of the other countries surveyed, only Turkey ranked lower, with about 25 percent of the population accepting evolution and 75 percent rejecting it. In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France, 80 percent or more of adults accepted evolution; in Japan, 78 percent of adults did.
The findings are detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Science.
Religion belief and evolution
The researchers also compared 10 independent variables—including religious belief, political ideology and understanding of concepts from genetics, or “genetic literacy”—between adults in America and nine European countries to determine whether these factors could predict attitudes toward evolution.
The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.
While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation, mainstream Protestants in both the United States and Europe instead treat Genesis as metaphorical, the researchers say.
“Whether it’s the Bible or the Koran, there are some people who think it’s everything you need to know,” Miller said. “Other people say these are very interesting metaphorical stories in that they give us guidance, but they’re not science books.”
This latter view is also shared by the Catholic Church.
Politics and the Flat Earth
Politics is also contributing to America's widespread confusion about evolution, the researchers say. Major political parties in the United States are more willing to make opposition to evolution a prominent part of their campaigns to garner conservative votes—something that does not happen in Europe or Japan.
Miller says that it makes about as much sense for politicians to oppose evolution in their campaigns as it is for them to advocate that the Earth is flat and promise to pass legislation saying so if elected to office.
"You can pass any law you want but it won't change the shape of the Earth," Miller told LiveScience.
.
Paul Meyers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, says that what politicians should be doing is saying, 'We ought to defer these questions to qualified authorities and we should have committees of scientists and engineers who we will approach for the right answers."
The researchers also single out the poor grasp of biological concepts, especially genetics, by American adults as an important contributor to the country's low confidence in evolution.
“The more you understand about genetics, the more you understand about the unity of life and the relationship humans have to other forms of life,” Miller said.
The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")
Science alone is not enough
But the problem is more than one of education—it goes deeper, and is a function of our country's culture and history, said study co-author Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in California.
“The rejection of evolution is not something that will be solved by throwing science at it,” Scott said in a telephone interview.
Myers expressed a similar sentiment. About the recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania which ruled against intelligent design, Myers said "it was a great victory for our side and it’s done a lot to help ensure that we keep religion out of the classroom for a while longer, but it doesn’t address the root causes. The creationists are still creationists—they're not going to change because of a court decision."
Scott says one thing that will help is to have Catholics and mainstream Protestants speak up about their theologies' acceptance of evolution.
"There needs to be more addressing of creationism from these more moderate theological perspectives," Scott said. “The professional clergy and theologians whom I know tend to be very reluctant to engage in that type of ‘my theology versus your theology’ discussion, but it matters because it’s having a negative effect on American scientific literacy."
The latest packaging of creationism is intelligent design, or ID, a conjecture which claims that certain features of the natural world are so complex that they could only be the work of a Supreme Being. ID proponents say they do not deny that evolution is true, only that scientists should not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention.
But scientists do not share doubts over evolution. They argue it is one of the most well tested theories around, supported by countless tests done in many different scientific fields. Scott says promoting uncertainty about evolution is just as bad as denying it outright and that ID and traditional creationism both spread the same message.
“Both are saying that evolution is bad science, that evolution is weak and inadequate science, and that it can’t do the job so therefore God did it,” she said.
-
The earth is milions of years old...but people that were created in God's image (including you) have only been here for 6000 years or so.
There was life here before....dinosaurs and other animals...but they were wiped out (hence the fossil record)
Satan was thrown out of heaven and hit the earth....killing everything
The ancient hebrew texts in the Book of Genesis and Isaiah indicate that there was a world that was destroyed before God re-created it.
Wrong.
Try Billions. Around 4.6.
LOLOLOL Homo Sapiens 6000 years old? ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
So, by your logic, I should be sick because the average American doesn't know much about genetics?
Hahahahaha.
-
You just aren`t that bright.
It quite allright to be a simpleton. I`m used to dealing with them on a daily basis. Almost everyone I meet is a simpleton.
Well thats what you get for working (managing) the local McDonalds. Maybe you should change jobs. Maybe Wendys
-
Homo Sapiens are around 200,000 years old.
Descended from Homo Erectus.
-
Oldest Human Fossils Identified
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
February 16, 2005
Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.
New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique.
Email to a Friend
RELATED
New Fossils Help Piece Together Human Origins
Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
Fossils From Ethiopia May Be Earliest Human Ancestor
Human Fossil Adds Fuel to Evolution Debate
The new findings, published in the February 17 issue of the journal Nature, establish Omo I and II as the oldest known fossils of modern humans. The prior record holders were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, which dated the emergence of modern humans in Africa to about 160,000 years ago.
"The new dating confirms the place of the Omo fossils as landmark finds in unraveling our origins," said Chris Stringer, director of the Human Origins Group at the Natural History Museum in London.
The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived.
The findings also add credibility to the widely accepted "Out of Africa" theory of human origins which holds that modern humans (later versions of Homo sapiens) first appeared in Africa and then spread out to colonize the rest of the world.
The new date also widens the gap between when anatomically modern humans emerged and when "cultural" traits—such as the creation of art and music, religious practices, and sophisticated tool-making techniques—seem to have appeared. Evidence of culture is not extensively documented in the archaeological record until around 50,000 years ago.
The wider gap could add fuel to a long-term debate swirling around when modern human behavior, as opposed to modern human anatomy, emerged.
"Those who believe that there is widely scattered evidence of 'modern' behavior going back 200,000 years in Africa will be delighted that modern human anatomy also goes back that far," said John Fleagle, a physical anthropologist at Stony Brook University in New York and one of the co-authors of the study. "[Scientists] who believe that modern human behavior only appeared abruptly about 50,000 years ago will see [the new date as] further expanding the distinction and the temporal gap between modern anatomy and modern behavior."
Dating Through Geology
Somewhat surprisingly, the first thing the scientific team had to do to come up with the new dates was to relocate the precise location where the fossil remains had been excavated in 1967. They were able to do this using National Geographic Society video footage taken during the first excavation. They also used photographs taken by Karl Butzer, a geologist currently at the University of Texas, who did the original geological studies of the site. Also helpful were hand-drawn maps from the late Paul Abell, another member of the 1967 team.
"So we know where Omo I and Omo II are now, and they're now documented by GPS, so they won't get lost again. But we didn't have GPS 40 years ago," said Frank Brown, a geologist at the University of Utah and a co-author of the study.
The remains of Omo I and Omo II were buried in the lowest sediment layer, called Member 1, of the 330-foot-thick (100-meter-thick) Kibish rock formation near the Omo River.
In addition to GPS, more advanced dating techniques have also been developed. The researchers sampled the volcanic ash on both sides of the river that lay above where the fossils were found. The ash was the same on both sides.
Email to a Friend
RELATED
New Fossils Help Piece Together Human Origins
Documentary Redraws Humans' Family Tree
Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia
Skull Fossil Opens Window Into Early Period of Human Origins
Fossils From Ethiopia May Be Earliest Human Ancestor
Human Fossil Adds Fuel to Evolution Debate
"Then we had to find something to date, and what that takes is a lot of walking," Brown said. "Most of the ashes are very fine grained, they dont have pumice [fragments] in them, so you go along and you go along, and eventually you find a place where there are pumices."
The presence of feldspar crystals from a volcanic eruption inside pumice fragments is an indication that the crystals have not been contaminated. Such unadulterated crystals can be dated using a technique called potassium-argon dating.
"By dating the crystals held in the pumice, you can say with a high level of confidence that everything in that member [group of sediment layers] is nearly the same date," Brown said. "We used a dating technique called 40AR/39AR, which is a variant of potassium-argon dating."
In the same Member 1 sediment layers, the team found additional Omo I bones, animal fossils, and stone tools.
The work was funded by the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, and the Australian National University.
Widening the Gap
Although both Omo I and Omo II were classified as Homo sapiens in 1967, the Omo II remains were considered much more primitive. Finding that the two individuals lived at around the same time in the same location suggests that, when modern humans first appeared, there were other, less modern populations also on the scene. The finding may add some new perspective to how we think about how and when "modern" human anatomy evolved.
"I have previously regarded Omo II as an archaic or primitive H. sapiens and Omo I as a modern H. sapiens, which would make them the same species," Stringer said. "If Omo I and II do belong together, the variation in the population is greater than I expected, but given what we see in larger fossil samples from other regions, we may need to accept that African populations showed large [physical-form] variation at this time."
Everyone agrees that the Omo II cranium is more primitive than the Omo I skull in many features, Fleagle said.
"Some see the two as part of a continuum, others see them as very distinct types of hominid," he said. "Whether Omo II gets put in Homo sapiens depends upon where one draws the boundary between H. sapiens and whatever species comes before—H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis.
"Regardless of how Omo II is classified, " he continued, "I don't consider it surprising to find two different morphologies existing at the same time. We know that Homo sapiens and Neandertals existed in Europe at the same time and that in the early Pleistocene [epoch] there was diversity of early hominid morphologies [or body forms]. Indeed, virtually every site that has early modern humans ... seems to show a diversity of morphologies with some more modern and some less so."
Exactly when modern behavior, as opposed to modern anatomy, emerged—indeed even how to define modern behavior—is another area in which the Omo fossils might contribute some insight. Common elements used to define modern behavior include planning ahead; innovating technologically; establishing social and trade networks; adapting to changing conditions and environments; and exhibiting symbolic behavior like cave painting, beadmaking (used to show status or group identity), or burying the dead.
The crux of the argument comes down to whether these abilities resulted from a sudden biological and genetic revolution or from a more gradual evolution of abilities that culminated around 50,000 years ago.
"I think we are still determining when "modern" behavior started to evolve, and my guess is that it too will have deeper roots in Africa," Stringer said. "There is growing evidence that elements of modern behavior were there a hundred thousand years ago, and I think the gap or mismatch between the emergence of modern anatomy and modern behavior may well be much less significant than currently believed."
Spencer Wells is a geneticist and an anthropologist and a National Geographic Emerging Explorer. From an analysis of DNA of thousands of men around the world, Wells says he has discovered that all humans alive today can be traced back to a small tribe of hunter-gatherers who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago.
"Many anthropologists, myself included, believe that what makes us truly human is our modern behavior, enabled by a modern brain," Wells said. "Modern behavior starts to show up sporadically around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago but doesn't really take off until around 50,000 years ago—the "Great Leap Forward" and dawn of the Upper Paleolithic [early Stone Age]."
The human population appears to have crashed to around 2,000 individuals around 70,000 years ago, at the same time they were headed into the worst part of the last ice age. The crash was possibly brought on by a massive volcanic eruption, Wells said.
"The hypothesis is that the survivors of this near-extinction event had to be smarter in order to survive, and this allowed them to settle the rest of the world outside of Africa. So, 'human-ness' may not been widespread until around 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, and this could be seen as the real origin of our species."
-
Wrong.
Try Billions. Around 4.6.
LOLOLOL Homo Sapiens 6000 years old? ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
millions or billions...Im not arguing the exact time....you nor I have any concept of that kind of time anyway....all I was saying was that humans....that have God's image...have been here about 6000 years.
there were creatures that looked like man in a previous time period....but they were NOT the same as us. They were killed...yet their remains are still found today (just like dinosaurs)
-
Descended from Homo Erectus.
You don't know how hard it was to supress the urge to make a joke.
Google is a helluva search engine, though.
-
Homo Sapiens are around 200,000 years old.
Descended from Homo Erectus.
Some more directly than others. ::)
-
(http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Earliest%20Piece/Images/28.jpg)
Hope this helps!
-
Adonis...
This is the event that caused the death of the previous world...
Jesus' words: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18).
When satan hit (many scientists believe it wasnt satan but a shooting star)....life was destroyed.....but then God began the creation sequence that is in Genesis.
Adonis, God gave you HIS IMAGE!
-
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/table_of_hominid_evolution.gif)
Hope this helps!
-
Adonis...
This is the event that caused the death of the previous world...
Jesus' words: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18).
When satan hit (many scientists believe it wasnt satan but a shooting star)....life was destroyed.....but then God began the creation sequence that is in Genesis.
Adonis, God gave you HIS IMAGE!
You are an idiot.
Go to a museum.
-
You are an idiot.
Go to a museum.
we are NOT the same as those creatures in the museum. Again, I believe that those creatures are very real...but we didnt evolve from them...they we all killed off when satan was thrown from heaven and he hit the earth.
PS- I have not insulted you in anyway. Nor do I copy and paste. Just wanted to let you know that you were created in God's image. Thats why satan hates you so much...when he see's you....he see's God
-
we are NOT the same as those creatures in the museum. Again, I believe that those creatures are very real...but we didnt evolve from them...they we all killed off when satan was thrown from heaven and he hit the earth.
PS- I have not insulted you in anyway. Nor do I copy and paste. Just wanted to let you know that you were created in God's image. Thats why satan hates you so much...when he see's you....he see's God
Your ignorance is insulting to mankind.
-
millions or billions...Im not arguing the exact time....you nor I have any concept of that kind of time anyway....all I was saying was that humans....that have God's image...have been here about 6000 years.
there were creatures that looked like man in a previous time period....but they were NOT the same as us. They were killed...yet their remains are still found today (just like dinosaurs)
The sad thing is i actually think you believe this nonsense. The bible is a collection of myths and fairytales, mainly sourced from ancient Sumeria. The 'adam and eve' garbage was a reworking of the Sumerian myth of creation, as was the story of moses, the flood, the death and resurrection of a savior etc. All the myths were handed down generations and eventually becam a part of early tribal jewish folklore. If you did just the slightest research you would discover this for yourself.
-
Since you are quite juvenile, I found this video for you to understand.
This is as simple as you can get.
-
The sad thing is i actually think you believe this nonsense. The bible is a collection of myths and fairytales, mainly sourced from ancient Sumeria. The 'adam and eve' garbage was a reworking of the Sumerian myth of creation, as was the story of moses, the flood, the death and resurrection of a savior etc. All the myths were handed down generations and eventually becam a part of early tribal jewish folklore. If you did just the slightest research you would discover this for yourself.
How can you explain the total oppression, genocide, and scattering of the Jewish race.....as predicted.....and then the reformation of Isreal....as predicted.
Jews were opressed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Nazi's......and their identity/nation still exists (as predicted about a 1000 years ago)
-
Still waiting for your response Mr. cutty/pastey...
anytime now....
-
Your ignorance is insulting to mankind.
You are wrong. We can down in a space ship carried by angels!!!
-
Since you are quite juvenile, I found this video for you to understand.
This is as simple as you can get.
Darwin, Davinci, Einstein all believed in the existence of God.
what arguement would you present to them? a youtube video? a copy and paste written by somebody with 1/10000th of their mental capacity?
-
Darwin, Davinci, Einstein all believed in the existence of God.
what arguement would you present to them? a youtube video? a copy and paste from somebody with 1/10000th of their mental capacity?
You are an idiot.
None of them believed in god.
You are REALLY stupid. Unbelievably so. How do you function in this world?
-
The earth is milions of years old...but people that were created in God's image (including you) have only been here for 6000 years or so.
There was life here before....dinosaurs and other animals...but they were wiped out (hence the fossil record)
Satan was thrown out of heaven and hit the earth....killing everything
The ancient hebrew texts in the Book of Genesis and Isaiah indicate that there was a world that was destroyed before God re-created it.
Quit enforcing your beliefs on other people you dipshit
-
Darwin, Davinci, Einstein all believed in the existence of God.
what arguement would you present to them? a youtube video? a copy and paste written by somebody with 1/10000th of their mental capacity?
Jesus liked it in the butt.
God had no penis and molested Jesus.
What explanation do you have for that? hahahahahah
-
How can you explain the total oppression, genocide, and scattering of the Jewish race.....as predicted.....and then the reformation of Isreal....as predicted.
Jews were opressed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Nazi's......and their identity/nation still exists (as predicted about a 1000 years ago)
At least you're posting in the right section ..... Gossip and Opinions
-
Why is it that people who believe in creationism look less evolved? ahahahahaa
-
Hahahaha, what's your Theton level Buttsuck?
-
How can you explain the total oppression, genocide, and scattering of the Jewish race.....as predicted.....and then the reformation of Isreal....as predicted.
Jews were opressed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Nazi's......and their identity/nation still exists (as predicted about a 1000 years ago)
Hahah it didn't predict shit. The bible is a book of instructions that people mindlessly follow. "Durrrrrrr i have to do the will of god.... and if i don't like it... i will rewrite the bible. What i think God MEANT to say is...."
-
You are an idiot.
None of them believed in god.
You are REALLY stupid. Unbelievably so. How do you function in this world?
they all did believe in God...Davinci was a catholic..
Einstein was a Jew....
Darwin admitted that a higher power created everything....but he believed that we evolved after that
-
Hahahaha, what's your Theton level Buttsuck?
Hahahah another silly religion.... Religion is something one should keep to themself.
-
they all did believe in God...Davinci was a catholic..
Eisntein was a Jew....
Darwin admitted that a higher power created everything....but he believed that we evolved after that
Piss off.. you aren't going to make some amazing revelation in Adonis and convert him into a God fearing Christian. It is silly. You are not right. None of us are. Quit enforcing your beliefs on other people.
-
they all did believe in God...Davinci was a catholic..
Einstein was a Jew....
Darwin admitted that a higher power created everything....but he believed that we evolved after that
Liar.
You have no clue.
-
How can you explain the total oppression, genocide, and scattering of the Jewish race.....as predicted.....and then the reformation of Isreal....as predicted.
Jews were opressed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Nazi's......and their identity/nation still exists (as predicted about a 1000 years ago)
What is your point? Nostradamouus predicted alot of things that have come to pass, so has mystic meg and the mad guy that lives down my street. Your point is totally irrelvant.
All you have to do is go to your nearest [non christian funded] university and research the anciant world and its myths and legends. You will look at christianity in a new light and it will change your life for the better. There is no excuse for ignorance living in the west with the resouces we have available to us.
they all did believe in God...Davinci was a catholic..
Eisntein was a Jew....
Darwin admitted that a higher power created everything....but he believed that we evolved after that
Once again totally irrelavant. Davinci didn't have a choice. Everyone HAD to be a catholic in his country, otherwise they would have been killed - much like in saudi arabia today.
Einstein was 'racially' jewish, but he was not religious. He saw judaism as a tradition - not a religion. He also did not believe in what you would call god. Once again, research!
-
Piss off.. you aren't going to make some amazing revelation in Adonis and convert him into a God fearing Christian. It is silly. You are not right. None of us are. Quit enforcing your beliefs on other people.
I have the right to state my beliefs. As are you and Adonis.
So you are saying that both I and Adonis are not right. Thats your belief.
-
they all did believe in God...Davinci was a catholic..
Eisntein was a Jew....
Darwin admitted that a higher power created everything....but he believed that we evolved after that
okay, i'm going to go ahead and join adonis in this retarded fight against you.
davinci was a catholic in a time when atheism did not exist.
einstein said, unequivocally, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." when einstein said "god does not play dice" and similar things, he was speaking in terms of the force of the universe from physics to illustrate that there is no such thing as "blind chance".
darwin was an agnostic at best. he once said "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God" so the best you can claim of him is he was open to the possibility that the origin of the universe came from some kind of supreme being, but in NO way was he religious. none. period.
-
I have the right to state my beliefs. As are you and Adonis.
So you are saying that both I and Adonis are not right. Thats your belief.
You don`t have the right to lie and spread disinformation about Darwin.
You are a fucking moron.
-
You don`t have the right to lie and spread disinformation about Darwin.
You are a fucking moron.
bingo. opinion is one thing, making shit up is another.
-
You don`t have the right to lie and spread disinformation about Darwin.
You are a fucking moron.
Darwin could not explain how life originated. He believed that a higher power put life on earth.
-
bingo. opinion is one thing, making shit up is another.
hahahaha, I see what you did there.
-
bingo. opinion is one thing, making shit up is another.
what did I make up?
-
Darwin could not explain how life originated. He believed that a higher power put life on earth.
no he didn't. he said he couldn't explain the catalytic event. he NEVER said he believed in god, at least not later in his life when darwinism as we know it came to be. he was an AGNOSTIC.
-
"a personal god is quite alien to me, and seems even naive". EINSTEIN
-
what did I make up?
Religion is responsible for more deaths then then the combonation of the rules of hitler, stalin, the dropping of the a-bombs and more.
-
what did I make up?
Just give up. Spreading of false information and lies will not win you any argument here.
-
what did I make up?
you made up that einstein and darwin believed in god. neither of them did. einstein was a strong atheist, referring to "god" only in a pantheistic "nature and the forces of physics" kind of sense, and darwin was an avowed agnostic who didn't even bother himself with what happened at the beginning of the universe.
however, in terms of earth religions he said christianity was "not supported by the evidence", so in terms of religions as we know them he was a de facto atheist.
-
Religion is responsible for more deaths then then the combonation of the rules of hitler, stalin, the dropping of the a-bombs and more.
and the thing is, the effect religion has doesn't make it TRUE. even if religion were proven to be a 100% positive effect on the world and everyone who believed in god was happy and all the atheists were miserable, even that wouldn't mean god is REAL, just that it's nice to BELIEVE he is.
to use dawkins' terminology, it's the difference between "belief in god" and "belief in belief".
-
Religion is responsible for more deaths then then the combonation of the rules of hitler, stalin, the dropping of the a-bombs and more.
That is not the teachings of Jesus that started wars.... politics/envy/greed started wars.
-
who gives a fuck?
Go eat a lb. of chicken and then a lb. of gasoline....let me know what the results are.
Any day now, Adonis.....still looking for an answer.
-
That is not the teachings of Jesus that started wars.... politics/envy/greed started wars.
....actually, the teachings of Jesus directly contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. Read a history book.
-
That is not the teachings of Jesus that started wars.... politics/envy/greed started wars.
Which teachings of Joshua/Jesus? The ones in the 'new testament'? Or the ones left out?
-
ok I will copy and paste...
The Good Dr. Einstein did believe in GOD. In his final days he asked one of his bedside nurses is she believed in God. She said, "Yes I do, doctor. Do You?"
-
That is not the teachings of Jesus that started wars.... politics/envy/greed started wars.
the teachings aren't what matter. people don't fight over the TEACHINGS of christ, they fight over the factuality of christ or the devotion to christ. it didn't matter what he said.
when two factions war against each other, for example a 9/11 hijacker climbing into an airplane getting ready to attack, he wasn't thinking "you damn judeo-christians, the 6th amendment says thou shalt not kill except when one of the other commandments is broken, not as a sweeping statement for all situations!!!"
they fight because they believe that they know exactly what their god wants and if you aren't doing it you're turning your back on their god. they fight over the "honor" of god. if the qu'ran and the bible were the exact same book, save for the substitutions of jesus/mohammad and god/allah, islam and christianity would still be at odds because each would believe that the other is rejecting the "one true god".
-
ok I will copy and paste...
The Good Dr. Einstein did believe in GOD. In his final days he asked one of his bedside nurses is she believed in God. She said, "Yes I do, doctor. Do You?"
ah yes, the "bedside conversion". these crop up all the time. problem is, they're never, ever corroborated. they've been attributed to einstein, darwin, and others. except they were never actually written down by anyone, just a claim that alone in his bed with a nurse or a doctor in the room he suddenly converted.
oh, and that ignores the fact that you DIDN'T SAY WHAT EINSTEIN SAID IN RESPONSE. i could ask you if you believe in god, doesn't mean i do myself.
-
the teachings aren't what matter. people don't fight over the TEACHINGS of christ, they fight over the factuality of christ or the devotion to christ. it didn't matter what he said.
when two factions war against each other, for example a 9/11 hijacker climbing into an airplane getting ready to attack, he wasn't thinking "you damn judeo-christians, the 6th amendment says thou shalt not kill except when one of the other commandments is broken, not as a sweeping statement for all situations!!!"
they fight because they believe that they know exactly what their god wants and if you aren't doing it you're turning your back on their god. they fight over the "honor" of god. if the qu'ran and the bible were the exact same book, save for the substitutions of jesus/mohammad and god/allah, islam and christianity would still be at odds because each would believe that the other is rejecting the "one true god".
I dont dissagree that sick people often take matters into their own hands and may eventually kill people.
Jesus and his disciples were KILLED by such people.
-
Thank you Zach!
We used to get a long in the Mayhem days.
hahha
-
Thank you Zach!
We used to get a long in the Mayhem days.
hahha
my man, let me clarify one thing. i don't take shit personally at all any more. i'm more than willing to set aside a few minor differences to battle a common enemy. ;D
-
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/table_of_hominid_evolution.gif)
Hope this helps!
That is a cool graph. Where did you find it?
-
I dont dissagree that sick people often take matters into their own hands and may eventually kill people.
Jesus and his disciples were KILLED by such people.
supposing for a minute that jesus was a true historical figure...
that would only PROVE my point. jesus supposedly claimed he was the messiah, and though the gospels never quote him as such that was supposedly the charge against him. so the jewish supreme council felt this was utter blasphemy and that he was dangerous, so they had him executed. this entire situation would have been averted had christ been just some dude and the council had been a non-religious entity.
-
ok I will copy and paste...
The Good Dr. Einstein did believe in GOD. In his final days he asked one of his bedside nurses is she believed in God. She said, "Yes I do, doctor. Do You?"
Wrong. This was invented by christains to try and 'claim' him, just as they've done with Darwin.
DIRECT QUOTES FROM EINSTEIN:
It was of a course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not bekleve in a personal god.
I am a deeply religious NONbeliever!
The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me!
Plese, 'royalty', stop with the einstein garbage!
-
I agree with you, I'm really smart.
...so smart that you can't even tell when someone is being saracstic. Wow, that really is smart.
-
Wrong. This was invented by christains to try and 'claim' him, just as they've done with Darwin.
DIRECT QUOTES FROM EINSTEIN:
It was of a course a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not bekleve in a personal god.
I am a deeply religious NONbeliever!
The idea of a personal god is quite alien to me!
Plese, 'royalty', stop with the einstein garbage!
you dont know what he truly said behind closed doors on his death bed!
you have closed your mind.....people often change....you are speculating
-
Wrong. This was invented by christains to try and 'claim' him, just as they've done with Darwin.
Don't just plop all christians in with the fanatics, please.
-
I have not sworn or had a single feeling of anger in this "debate"
Im not your enemy guys.
I wasnt at Einstiens bed...nor did I personally know Darwin or Davinci...But at one point or another....I have read that thay believed in a God.
Im not here to convert anyone...I stated my opinions as did you guys.
I have been online for nearly 2 hours now so soon I'll have to go.
-
you dont know what he truly said behind closed doors on his death bed!
you have closed your mind.....people often change....you are speculating
NO one knows what einstein said on his death bed. he said it in german to a nurse that didn't speak the language. for all we know he asked for a ham sandwich and a blowjob.
einstein made dozens of public statements avowing his atheism, and you're claiming that you definitively know what he said behind closed doors to an unnamed nurse? i could make the same claims for the pope or emperor constantine, that doesn't mean it has any validity to it.
-
NO one knows what einstein said on his death bed. he said it in german to a nurse that didn't speak the language. for all we know he asked for a ham sandwich and a blowjob.
einstein made dozens of public statements avowing his atheism, and you're claiming that you definitively know what he said behind closed doors to an unnamed nurse? i could make the same claims for the pope or emperor constantine, that doesn't mean it has any validity to it.
No, I admitted that it was a copy and paste....I didnt say anything was definite.
God Bless you all. Bye
-
I wasnt at Einstiens bed...nor did I personally know Darwin or Davinci...But at one point or another....I have read that thay believed in a God.
that's the problem. you found the quotes undoubtedly from some christian group who was trying to prove that they have some of science's strongest names among their ranks. i've even seen it happen to the still alive richard dawkins. the "bedside conversion" is a famous little nugget of dishonesty because as long as we claim it was said to a single person right before they died, not only don't we know who it was said to, but the person who said it was dead so we can't ask them about it!
-
Just get the USRDA. That is all you need for optimum health.
Most of the general population fits into the first category - survival. For example, people today still believe that the USRDA (United States Recommended Daily Allowance) is an upper or optimal limit for nutrition. This is not true. The USRDA is based upon the minimum amount of a nutrient needed for survival! For example, the USRDA for Vitamin C is 75mg. This amount is actually the minimum amount needed (with a margin for error built in) to avoid scurvy. Scurvy is a disease caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C. And you know what? It's working! How many people do you know suffer from scurvy? The problem is that 75 milligrams is not the optimum amount for good health. While this amount is highly debated, it is more than likely much greater than the USRDA. In fact, there is an established "tolerable upper limit" of 2 grams (that's 2000mg) daily - far higher than the minimum amount for survival.
Thing is....I see whats going on here, and in some ways it is funny. The energy you get from 'burning' one gram of protein is the same TYPE of energy that you get from burning one gram of carbohydrate as is one gram of fat. There in lies the 'a calorie is a calorie'. The reason Adam is getting a charge here is that people are arguing thats not the case. It is. The point people should be going after is what does it take to GET that calorie (or to be more specific, the kilocalorie). The way we get our 'calorie' burned from fat is different than the way we get it burned from a carbohydrate.
-
The point people should be going after is what does it take to GET that calorie (or to be more specific, the kilocalorie). The way we get our 'calorie' burned from fat is different than the way we get it burned from a carbohydrate.
That point has been addressed, actually.
-
With ZERO Leafy green veggies or fruits and ZERO omega -3 fatty acids or DHA & EPA you will be dead by 60.
Props!
-
With ZERO Leafy green veggies or fruits and ZERO omega -3 fatty acids or DHA & EPA you will be dead by 60.
Props!
I eat tons of vegetables!
I eat anything I want!
-
Most of the general population fits into the first category - survival. For example, people today still believe that the USRDA (United States Recommended Daily Allowance) is an upper or optimal limit for nutrition. This is not true. The USRDA is based upon the minimum amount of a nutrient needed for survival! For example, the USRDA for Vitamin C is 75mg. This amount is actually the minimum amount needed (with a margin for error built in) to avoid scurvy. Scurvy is a disease caused by a deficiency of Vitamin C. And you know what? It's working! How many people do you know suffer from scurvy? The problem is that 75 milligrams is not the optimum amount for good health. While this amount is highly debated, it is more than likely much greater than the USRDA. In fact, there is an established "tolerable upper limit" of 2 grams (that's 2000mg) daily - far higher than the minimum amount for survival.
Thing is....I see whats going on here, and in some ways it is funny. The energy you get from 'burning' one gram of protein is the same TYPE of energy that you get from burning one gram of carbohydrate as is one gram of fat. There in lies the 'a calorie is a calorie'. The reason Adam is getting a charge here is that people are arguing thats not the case. It is. The point people should be going after is what does it take to GET that calorie (or to be more specific, the kilocalorie). The way we get our 'calorie' burned from fat is different than the way we get it burned from a carbohydrate.
You aren`t up to standards on the USRDA.
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/21/372/0.pdf
-
http://www.nutrition.gov/
-
I eat tons of vegetables!
I eat anything I want!
Sorry, that slice of canned tomato and 2 slices of pickles you have on your big Mac dont count hoss.
Your poor body is so deficient in Omega-3 and DHA EPA its not even funny.
Its a wonder you dont have heart disease yet.
Mad PROPS!
-
Sorry, that slice of canned tomato and 2 slices of pickles you have on your big Mac dont count hoss.
Your poor body is so deficient in Omega-3 and DHA EPA its not even funny.
Its a wonder you dont have heart disease yet.
Mad PROPS!
Somedays I cook from a Vegetarian cookbook!
-
You aren`t up to standards on the USRDA.
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/21/372/0.pdf
Well, actually I am Adam....the quote I was using was for 18 y/o and under.....I knew that adults needed 90 - 95 a day for Vit. C. The 15mg difference was splitting hairs IMO
-
Somedays I cook from a Vegetarian cookbook!
Your poor brain is suffering from ZERO DHA and you heart is suffering from ZERO EPA.
You MUST have very low natural Test levels from the SEVERE lack of Omega 3's in yrou diet.
-
Well, actually I am Adam....the quote I was using was for 18 y/o and under.....I knew that adults needed 90 - 95 a day for Vit. C. The 15mg difference was splitting hairs IMO
I don`t think so, given the small amount needed.
The thing is, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to not Exceed vitamin and mineral guidelines automatically by eating a normal diet.
That is why it is set up the way it is. You would have to purposely try to be deficient EVERYDAY which in itself is not feasible.
-
Your poor brain is suffering from ZERO DHA and you heart is suffering from ZERO EPA.
You MUST have very low natural Test levels from the SEVERE lack of Omega 3's in yrou diet.
Not really.
I cook everything in Different Oils as recipes call for and LOVE SEAFOOD! Especially Cheese Stuffed King Mackerel.
-
Not really.
I cook everything in Different Oils as recipes call for and LOVE SEAFOOD! Especially Cheese Stuffed King Mackerel.
LOL I love how you TOTALLY change your entire game plan every time you post...
Its McDonalds w/ fries all the time.
THen its Ben& JErrys with cookes ALL DAY
Now its a vegetarian diet cookbook meal plan LOL
Then its SeaFood cooked with oils every day LOL
Right and tomorrow its going to be fried Aligator and pickled pigs feet and Jez eats the crusted grouper with ceaser salad .. whatever hoss.
-
LOL I love how you TOTALLY change your entire game plan every time you post...
Its McDonalds w/ fries all the time.
THen its Ben& JErrys with cookes ALL DAY
Now its a vegetarian diet cookbook meal plan LOL
Then its SeaFood cooked with oils every day LOL
Right and tomorrow its going to be fried Aligator and pickled pigs feet and Jez eats the crusted grouper with ceaser salad .. whatever hoss.
THAT IS THE POINT
TA does not eat the same 3 or 4 foods 5 times a day everyday. He eats what he wants he wants it.
Why don't you give it a try we are living in a time where we have access to the broadest array of food ever availible to anyone. Surely chicken breast and brown rice isn't the be all and end all.
-
Surely chicken breast and brown rice isn't the be all and end all.
No but Wild Salmon and asparagus is.
-
LOL I love how you TOTALLY change your entire game plan every time you post...
Its McDonalds w/ fries all the time.
THen its Ben& JErrys with cookes ALL DAY
Now its a vegetarian diet cookbook meal plan LOL
Then its SeaFood cooked with oils every day LOL
Right and tomorrow its going to be fried Aligator and pickled pigs feet and Jez eats the crusted grouper with ceaser salad .. whatever hoss.
Yep.
I LOVE food!
Here is a good Recipe!
Vegetable Antipasto Stuffed Bread Recipe courtesy Rachael Ray
Show: 30 Minute Meals
Episode: Everyday Gourmet
1 loaf crusty bread, 9 to 12 inches in length
1/4 cup sun-dried tomatoes in olive oil, drained, chopped -- 1/2 a small jar
1/4 cup black pitted calamata or oil cured olives, your preference, chopped
1/2 cup prepared pesto sauce
1/4 pound deli sliced provolone
1 jar, 16 to 18 roasted red peppers, drained
1 (15-ounce) can quartered artichoke hearts in water, drained
1 cup giardiniera, pickled vegetables (hot pickled peppers, cauliflower, carrots available on the Italian foods aisle of market or in bulk bins near deli section with bulk olives)
Coarse salt and black pepper
Extra-virgin olive oil, for drizzling
Cut the top off a loaf of crusty bread. Hollow out the inside of the bread.
Mix chopped sun-dried tomatoes, chopped olives and store bought or homemade pesto sauce. Spread the mixture evenly across the bottom of the hollowed out bread. Layer the cheese into the loaf. Layer the roasted red peppers on top of the cheese. Coarsely chop the drained artichoke hearts and add them in a layer over the red peppers. Sprinkle in the chopped hot pickled vegetables and drizzle some extra-virgin olive oil on top. Replace the top, cut the stuffed loaf into pieces and serve.
-
Thats way too much trouble. Why not just have 1/2 jar of Ben & Jerry's? After all a calorie is a calorie!
-
Einstein was 'racially' jewish, but he was not religious. He saw judaism as a tradition - not a religion. He also did not believe in what you would call god. Once again, research!
i think you need to do some reading my friend einstein was a deist in line with spinoza the philosopher. he did not beleive in a personal god.
-
Why don't you give it a try we are living in a time where we have access to the broadest array of food ever availible to anyone. Surely chicken breast and brown rice isn't the be all and end all.
Yes, because it was just a short time ago "we" weren't...right?
I agree with you Adam....someone would have to go out of their way to NOT meet the RDA. My point was that the RDA is not set for optimal health.....but meet the bare requirements.
-
USDRA designed for average or sedentary people? Hard trainers would then require more vitamins,nutrients, etc.
-
THAT IS THE POINT
TA does not eat the same 3 or 4 foods 5 times a day everyday. He eats what he wants he wants it.
Why don't you give it a try we are living in a time where we have access to the broadest array of food ever availible to anyone. Surely chicken breast and brown rice isn't the be all and end all.
are you truly that ignorant, what is your answer to the massive meteoric rise in all disease in populations with diets high in sat fat and toxin laden food.
there is a reason why america is one of the unhealthiest nations in the world and places like mcdonalds perpetuate it. fast eating is not the way, fruits, veggies, grains, and lean meat sources perferably all organic is the optimal diet. variety is key but what adonis is claiming is horrible, and dead wrong and has been proven so many many times.
he doesnt even know that einstein beleived in a higher power ahahaha.
darwin did to at the out set, but was a secualr humanist later in life.
abiogenesis is still up for grabs, adonis how did life originate?
-
are you truly that ignorant, what is your answer to the massive meteoric rise in all disease in populations with diets high in sat fat and toxin laden food.
there is a reason why america is one of the unhealthiest nations in the world and places like mcdonalds perpetuate it. fast eating is not the way, fruits, veggies, grains, and lean meat sources perferably all organic is the optimal diet. variety is key but what adonis is claiming is horrible, and dead wrong and has been proven so many many times.
he doesnt even know that einstein beleived in a higher power ahahaha.
darwin did to at the out set, but was a secualr humanist later in life.
abiogenesis is still up for grabs, adonis how did life originate?
Full of lies you are.
-
Stuffed Bread Recipe
A fancy name for a sandwich :P
Sounds nice actually.
One point, bodybuilders are morons if they diet on just plain chicken and rice. Even marinating a chicken breast in something as simple honey and soya sauce would give variation and make the food more appealing.
-
A fancy name for a sandwich :P
Sounds nice actually.
One point, bodybuilders are morons if they diet on just plain chicken and rice. Even marinating a chicken breast in something as simple honey and soya sauce would give variation and make the food more appealing.
Iv`e read where some won`t even chew gum or use Cinnamon or even Splenda out of some strange fear.
Its amusing.
-
Full of lies you are.
hahahahahahah, i actual am starting not to mind you. your tactic is funny, and all your doing is getting people to follow along and create a buzzz which is working.
i dont understand why your doing it though. can you actual make money off your internet persona?
-
-
dude for one, i dont care what einstein really thought of god, philosophers are the people to listen to not a physicist. two, he beleived in a deity, this is common knowledge, if you read some of his writings on spiritual matters you will see he sides with spinoza.
-
dude for one, i dont care what einstein really thought of god, philosophers are the people to listen to not a physicist. two, he beleived in a deity, this is common knowledge, if you read some of his writings on spiritual matters you will see he sides with spinoza.
Again, you are lying.
-
I sort of agree with Adonis here, I think what he is trying to say is: For OPTIMUM performance of your muscles ala bodybuiliding and for optimum brain function the body uses carbohydrates as its preffered source of fuel. SO carbs are really more important for those 2 functions. A natural trainee will not benefit from extra protein of more than 1 - 1.5g/lb of lean tissue depending on the persons ability to digest protein efficiently. So he is sort of right, get you protein daily and dont overdo it, then manipulate your carbs so that you are either in deficit to lose weight or in surplus in order to gain weight, hopefully muscle tissue if the stimulus is there and rest and recovery is adequate. Carbs are def. required for maximising your performance in the gym, how many and what sort of carbs you have are the best variables. Conauming excess protein will only work when you are on the gear as you are able to process and digest and utilise protein much more efficiently.
-
dude for one, i dont care what einstein really thought of god, philosophers are the people to listen to not a physicist. two, he beleived in a deity, this is common knowledge, if you read some of his writings on spiritual matters you will see he sides with spinoza.
he said, explicitly, that he didn't believe in a personal god. the "god" or "deity" he believed in was the manner in which the universe functioned. his god was the god of physical reality, not anything resembling the theistic god.
-
i think you need to do some reading my friend einstein was a deist in line with spinoza the philosopher. he did not beleive in a personal god.
Read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins. He explictly states Einstein was not a deist. Unless of couse, you are more learned and intelligent than him ::)
I know he did not believe in a personal god, hence the many quotes from einstein i've already posted.
Oh, by the way; Spinoza was pantheist. Hope this helps.
-
There is a religion board.
HOPE THIS HELPS.
-
So, let's get this back on track...
Adonis, you've stated that a calorie is a calorie and as such, macro nutrient configuration makes no difference on muscle gain/fat loss. If this is true, and we use your gasoline/hamburger analogy, how well do you think your car would run on hamburgers? Not too well I'm guessing. Just like your car can't run on hamburgers, the human body cannot optimally build muscle or lose fat on ice cream, Krispy Creams and McDonalds.
Hope that helps...
-
the human body cannot optimally build muscle or lose fat on ice cream, Krispy Creams and McDonalds.
Maybe that explains why Adonis is a whopping 160 stud?
-
So, let's get this back on track...
Adonis, you've stated that a calorie is a calorie and as such, macro nutrient configuration makes no difference on muscle gain/fat loss. If this is true, and we use your gasoline/hamburger analogy, how well do you think your car would run on hamburgers? Not too well I'm guessing. Just like your car can't run on hamburgers, the human body cannot optimally build muscle or lose fat on ice cream, Krispy Creams and McDonalds.
Hope that helps...
Of course it can.
The amount of Protein needed is minimal. You can get adequate Protien, Carbs and Fat through Ice Cream, Krispy Kreme and Mcdonalds and not go over a calorie limit. Understand that is not all I eat. What is it with you people and your "All or Nothing" Mentality?
-
Of course it can.
The amount of Protein needed is minimal. You can get adequate Protien, Carbs and Fat through Ice Cream, Krispy Kreme and Mcdonalds and not go over a calorie limit. Understand that is not all I eat. What is it with you people and your "All or Nothing" Mentality?
How do you define adequate?
-
How do you define adequate?
USRDA and above.
Its hard NOT to get adequate and optimal Nutrition.
You would have to go out of your way to do so. The main problem is getting too much, which leads to obesity which is the WORST problem when it comes to nutrition.
-
USRDA and above.
Its hard NOT to get adequate and optimal Nutrition.
You would have to go out of your way to do so. The main problem is getting too much, which leads to obesity which is the WORST problem when it comes to nutrition.
The USRDA is adequate or optimal ?
-
USRDA and above.
The main problem is getting too much, which leads to obesity
Awesome gibberish.:)
-
The USRDA is adequate or optimal ?
Can be both. The most important thing is to meet the USRDA but do not overly exceed, which most people fail miserably at doing so.
Most on this site are obese even.
-
A doctor's definition of obese is laughable.
-
Can be both. The most important thing is to meet the USRDA but do not overly exceed, which most people fail miserably at doing so.
Most on this site are obese even.
Yes, just like you claiming to be 45-50% bodyfat before your Getbig diet.
-
A doctor's definition of obese is laughable.
Oh thats funny,
Since I am willing to bet that, if you posted a picture, you would be considered obese.
-
Can be both. The most important thing is to meet the USRDA but do not overly exceed, which most people fail miserably at doing so.
Most on this site are obese even.
Under what circumstances?
-
Oh thats funny,
Since I am willing to bet that, if you posted a picture, you would be considered obese.
Hahahaha, depends on who commented.
-
Under what circumstances?
The USRDA is a guideline.
Obviously if you are a marathon runner, you would need more calories from Carbs and Fat.
Bodybuilders, however, do not need anything special in their diet or in any excess as it does not demand so.
-
Read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins. He explictly states Einstein was not a deist. Unless of couse, you are more learned and intelligent than him ::)
I know he did not believe in a personal god, hence the many quotes from einstein i've already posted.
Oh, by the way; Spinoza was pantheist. Hope this helps.
you dont have a clue what your talking about. for one dawkins is a moron in philosophy, sorry he is a zoologist if im not mistaken, how does that make him a expert on religious. please post some of his amazing arguments against god, they are poor and weak at best. i could debate dawkins easily, he is smarter then me no doubt, but does he know more about philosophy and this particular argument, i would bet agaisnt it. his book is underwhelming, and he sets up strawmen, please enlighten me as to his arguments against a creator, not religion, on that i agree.
a pantheist is a monist hope this helps. that the universe is god, this is the oneness, the universe is god and not seperate(unlike theism) you dont know what your talking about
here is pantheism
Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist.
pantheism is a form of monism, a detity still exists, i havent said einstein was a theist, he was a deist and beleived in divinity. please post your quotes agian so i can post counter quotes, were he refers to god, and makes many religious statements.
also, you would do better to read einsteins actual writings then someones interpretation of him, this is causing your confusion.
here you go, buy it read it, by someone with no agenda. and someone smarter then dawkins by a mile ;D
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1570627681/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-6135251-8522254?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155
from einstein in IDEAS AND OPINIONS
"my belief is a cross between pythagoras and spinoza; there is a central order to the cosmos, an order that can be directly apprehended by the soul in mystical union".
please stop reading books written by atheists or theists on what einstein said, why dont you read what einstein ACTUALLY wrote ahaha.
also stop the ignorance, he was a deity beleiving man with many mystical writings, you just havent read them. pantheism is deitism, nautre, is god and so on, divinity is deism.
-
Yes, just like you claiming to be 45-50% bodyfat before your Getbig diet.
No response to this?
-
he said, explicitly, that he didn't believe in a personal god. the "god" or "deity" he believed in was the manner in which the universe functioned. his god was the god of physical reality, not anything resembling the theistic god.
somewhat right, nature was god, however if you read something of his you would know that he beleived in a deity that wound up the universe and let us be, a organizing intelligence. a personal god only means a god who cares for us, who is seperate and loving with commuication with the creation. this is not einsteins god, nor mine.
please stop misinterpreting my posts, einstein was not religious. also, he is not that well read on religious matters, or philosophy. and is of no real importance to me in any discussion about god. why would he be, being an expert in one area does not make you an expert in others, like dawkins nuthuggers like to think haha.
it just shows that cosmic intelligence is not a dumb mans faith.
there are other atheist books out there, dawkins should be that last one you read, his arguments are very weak and easily dismissed.
-
you dont have a clue what your talking about. for one dawkins is a moron in philosophy, sorry he is a zoologist if im not mistaken, how does that make him a expert on religious. please post some of his amazing arguments against god, they are poor and weak at best. i could debate dawkins easily, he is smarter then me no doubt, but does he know more about philosophy and this particular argument, i would bet agaisnt it. his book is underwhelming, and he sets up strawmen, please enlighten me as to his arguments against a creator, not religion, on that i agree.
a pantheist is a monist hope this helps. that the universe is god, this is the oneness, the universe is god and not seperate(unlike theism) you dont know what your talking about
here is pantheism
Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist.
pantheism is a form of monism, a detity still exists, i havent said einstein was a theist, he was a deist and beleived in divinity. please post your quotes agian so i can post counter quotes, were he refers to god, and makes many religious statements.
also, you would do better to read einsteins actual writings then someones interpretation of him, this is causing your confusion.
here you go, buy it read it, by someone with no agenda. and someone smarter then dawkins by a mile ;D
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1570627681/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-6135251-8522254?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155
from einstein in IDEAS AND OPINIONS
"my belief is a cross between pythagoras and spinoza; there is a central order to the cosmos, an order that can be directly apprehended by the soul in mystical union".
please stop reading books written by atheists or theists on what einstein said, why dont you read what einstein ACTUALLY wrote ahaha.
also stop the ignorance, he was a deity beleiving man with many mystical writings, you just havent read them. pantheism is deitism, nautre, is god and so on, divinity is deism.
ROFLMAO.
::) You clearly defined your ignorance.
-
the point is that you're stretching "god" out so far it's meaningless. you're just defining "god" as whatever you want, and in this case it's the abstract concept of physical laws or an event, not an actual being.
hell, a friend of mine defines "god" as the force that created the big bang, so would you say he believes in a god? no, he just uses the word god as a label to something.
and who said anything about being well read in anything? my point was that royalty was claiming einstein believed in god and i said it was irrefutable that he didn't. you're trying to turn this into an actual discussion about god where i was merely talking about whether or not a small triumverate of scientists were religious men.
i've read enough, believe you me. dawkins is just my most recent.
-
No response to this?
I was nearly 40. In the high 30s.
-
the point is that you're stretching "god" out so far it's meaningless. you're just defining "god" as whatever you want, and in this case it's the abstract concept of physical laws or an event, not an actual being.
hell, a friend of mine defines "god" as the force that created the big bang, so would you say he believes in a god? no, he just uses the word god as a label to something.
and who said anything about being well read in anything? my point was that royalty was claiming einstein believed in god and i said it was irrefutable that he didn't. you're trying to turn this into an actual discussion about god where i was merely talking about whether or not a small triumverate of scientists were religious men.
i've read enough, believe you me. dawkins is just my most recent.
Dawkins is God. :)
Have you watched the Root of Evil Documentary?
If not I can get it for you Zach.
-
ROFLMAO.
::) You clearly defined your ignorance.
anyone who thinks that this reality is all there is, is ignorant to the physics movement, logics and philosophy.
you might be the dumbest person on this board.
what is ignorant about it?
what that a zoologist is suddenly an expert in philosophy? haha, follow the leader adonis.
heres dawkins
"religion is teh bad and not true because people kill in the name of religion"
but wait a minute richard that doesnt prove shit, just that religion is wrong, the exoteric truth, and people are bad how does that prove that god does not exist?
"i dont care"
what about all the atheits that kill?
"doesnt matter"
free will?
"im not concerned with free will"-this is an actual quote ahahhaahaha
how funny he is not concerned with arguments against.
-
Scientology was founded by a science fiction writer.
True story.
-
you dont have a clue what your talking about. for one dawkins is a moron in philosophy, sorry he is a zoologist if im not mistaken, how does that make him a expert on religious.
dawkins is a biologist, and if you actually read a single thing about him or by him you would know that. the fact that you had no idea what dawkins does tells me you have no idea what his actual beliefs are, and this renders everything you could possibly say about ANYTHING in this discussion null and void.
in fact, specitically, dawkins is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, which means he is a DEFINITE expert in terms of religious matters. why? well, because evolutionary biology and religion are battling head to head on the same matter. you talk about dawkins philosophy, but dawkins HAS no philosphy. his books, the selfish gene or the blind watchmaker, are PURELY religious, and he actually doesn't talk about things from a philosophical standpoint.
your complete and utter ignorance in what your talking about reveals you to be the moron you are. as they say, i hope this helps.
-
the point is that you're stretching "god" out so far it's meaningless. you're just defining "god" as whatever you want, and in this case it's the abstract concept of physical laws or an event, not an actual being.
hell, a friend of mine defines "god" as the force that created the big bang, so would you say he believes in a god? no, he just uses the word god as a label to something.
and who said anything about being well read in anything? my point was that royalty was claiming einstein believed in god and i said it was irrefutable that he didn't. you're trying to turn this into an actual discussion about god where i was merely talking about whether or not a small triumverate of scientists were religious men.
i've read enough, believe you me. dawkins is just my most recent.
i proved einstein beleived in god, and your definition of god above is not my god. pantheism becomes so broad it loses meaning. im not a panthiest, im a theist and for good reason, its the most logical.
atheism is ill-logical.
god to me is us and not us, the body but not the god-head. its more complicated but i like einstein ;D beleive in divinity.
dawkins is one of the worst atheists there is, seriously, if your read on the subject then you would agree, others have much better arguments.
the fact that adonis loves dawkins shows his stupidity, someone post one of the arguments he made that was good. please
-
you might be the dumbest person on this board.
This coming from someone with the handle "usmokepole" ::)
-
dawkins is a biologist, and if you actually read a single thing about him or by him you would know that. the fact that you had no idea what dawkins does tells me you have no idea what his actual beliefs are, and this renders everything you could possibly say about ANYTHING in this discussion null and void.
in fact, specitically, dawkins is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, which means he is a DEFINITE expert in terms of religious matters. why? well, because evolutionary biology and religion are battling head to head on the same matter. you talk about dawkins philosophy, but dawkins HAS no philosphy. his books, the selfish gene or the blind watchmaker, are PURELY religious, and he actually doesn't talk about things from a philosophical standpoint.
your complete and utter ignorance in what your talking about reveals you to be the moron you are. as they say, i hope this helps.
And the Truth was Spoken! Dawkowned!
-
This coming from someone with the handle "usmokepole"
Hahahaha
-
i proved einstein beleived in god, and your definition of god above is not my god. pantheism becomes so broad it loses meaning. im not a panthiest, im a theist and for good reason, its the most logical.
atheism is ill-logical.
god to me is us and not us, the body but not the god-head. its more complicated but i like einstein ;D beleive in divinity.
dawkins is one of the worst atheists there is, seriously, if your read on the subject then you would agree, others have much better arguments.
the fact that adonis loves dawkins shows his stupidity, someone post one of the arguments he made that was good. please
Richard Dawkins is God.
-
"religion is teh bad and not true because people kill in the name of religion"
but wait a minute richard that doesnt prove shit, just that religion is wrong, the exoteric truth, and people are bad how does that prove that god does not exist?
"i dont care"
what about all the atheits that kill?
"doesnt matter"
free will?
"im not concerned with free will"-this is an actual quote ahahhaahaha
how funny he is not concerned with arguments against.
sigh... one last reply for you.
once again, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST. not zoologist. BIG difference.
secondly, dawkins differentiates between religious people who kill, and people who kill in the name of religion. this is why he says it doesn't matter if hitler was a catholic or an atheist, because he was killing based on a very bizarre eugenics concept. he NEVER uses the violent tendencies of the religious as evidence AGAINST god, only that religion is a negative force.
moreover, he explicitly states that even if it were true that all religious people were happy and atheists were all assholes, it wouldn't make god true. he says over and over and over and over again that "goodness" and "badness" and what people do has NO bearing on the reality of god, it's only mentioned in terms of those who say that believing in god is a good thing to do.
"belief in god" vs "belief in belief". you have no fucking idea what dawkins has said about anything, do you?
-
i proved einstein beleived in god, and your definition of god above is not my god. pantheism becomes so broad it loses meaning. im not a panthiest, im a theist and for good reason, its the most logical.
atheism is ill-logical.
god to me is us and not us, the body but not the god-head. its more complicated but i like einstein ;D beleive in divinity.
dawkins is one of the worst atheists there is, seriously, if your read on the subject then you would agree, others have much better arguments.
the fact that adonis loves dawkins shows his stupidity, someone post one of the arguments he made that was good. please
Here you go
-
i proved einstein beleived in god, and your definition of god above is not my god. pantheism becomes so broad it loses meaning. im not a panthiest, im a theist and for good reason, its the most logical.
atheism is ill-logical.
god to me is us and not us, the body but not the god-head. its more complicated but i like einstein ;D beleive in divinity.
dawkins is one of the worst atheists there is, seriously, if your read on the subject then you would agree, others have much better arguments.
the fact that adonis loves dawkins shows his stupidity, someone post one of the arguments he made that was good. please.
the fact that you don't even know who richard dawkins is or what his actual viewpoints are shows YOUR stupidity.
-
And another
&mode=related&search=
-
THIS ONE IS AWESOME!
-
the fact that you don't even know who richard dawkins is or what his actual viewpoints are shows YOUR stupidity.
Clarification: stupidity and ignorance are two different things.
But being ignorant about a subject and arguing it anyway is stupid.
:)
-
Clarification: stupidity and ignorance are two different things.
But being ignorant about a subject and arguing it anyway is stupid.
:)
true, true. i was meaning it more in the sense of claiming authority while being so blaringly ignorant, but you're right i was a little vague. touche. ;D
-
Nah, I was bored and tried to be funny without success.
-
true, true. i was meaning it more in the sense of claiming authority while being so blaringly ignorant, but you're right i was a little vague. touche. ;D
I'm getting sick of these 'guys' that google something and ten seconds later think they're an expert. 'Usmokepole' is right in that Dawkins isn't the be all and end all, but his work is very accessible and fun to read. The selfish gene and the god delusion should be studied in schools so children can learn to think for themselves.
The root of all evil doco was superb, and he caught an unbelievable amount of flack from christians in the UK. I particularly like his encounter with ted haggard, the meth using rent boy shagger.
-
dawkins is a biologist, and if you actually read a single thing about him or by him you would know that. the fact that you had no idea what dawkins does tells me you have no idea what his actual beliefs are, and this renders everything you could possibly say about ANYTHING in this discussion null and void.
in fact, specitically, dawkins is an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, which means he is a DEFINITE expert in terms of religious matters. why? well, because evolutionary biology and religion are battling head to head on the same matter. you talk about dawkins philosophy, but dawkins HAS no philosphy. his books, the selfish gene or the blind watchmaker, are PURELY religious, and he actually doesn't talk about things from a philosophical standpoint.
your complete and utter ignorance in what your talking about reveals you to be the moron you are. as they say, i hope this helps.
ahahahahahaha you are wrong on every count, i dwarf you on iq by at least a hundred points.
he is a zoologists, your ignorance of the differentiation of biology and zoology is striking. if there was a quiz at the end of the book you would fail.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Biography/bio.shtml
Zoology is the study of animal life. It covers areas ranging from the structure of organisms to the subcellular unit of life. Some zoologists are interested in the biology of particular groups of animals. Others are concerned with the structure and function of animal bodies. Still others study how new animals are formed and how their characteristics are passed on from one generation to another. Zoologists study the interactions of animals with one another and their environments, and the significance of the behavior of animals.
Zoology is both descriptive and analytical. It can be approached either as a basic science or as an applied science. A worker in basic zoology is interested in knowledge of animals for its own sake without consideration of the direct application of the information gained. In contrast, workers in applied zoology are interested in information which will directly benefit humans; medicine is an example.
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) is Lecturer in Zoology (1970-present) at Oxford University and the author of numerous books on Darwinian evolution including the The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. He is perhaps the most well known scientist in the world.
Dawkins' biggest claim to fame is his championing of a gene-centric biology, whereby genes are the central units and agents of life and evolution. On his view, evolution works almost exclusively at the level of genes: selection favors genes that maximize their copies.
Richard Dawkins was educated under the tutelage of ethologist Niko Tinbergen at Oxford University. He proceeded to become Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley from 1967-1969 after which he began his current position at Oxford. Dawkins published his first book (The Selfish Gene) in 1976, six years after joining the faculty at Oxford.
In 1995 Richard Dawkins became the first holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. In 1997 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature.
Richard Dawkins is the bestselling author of seven books which include The Selfish Gene(1976; second edition 1989), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996) and Unweaving the Rainbow (1998).
your credability is gone stop replying to me in hope no one will think your a moron. hahah
im no expert atheist, but i know more then you.
his arguments in the blind watchmaker are philosophical, agian you never read the book or did not comprehend it
the title is a direct counter to william paleys argument. he was a philosopher, religion arguments are philosophical you are dumb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
THIS SENTENCE IS NEVER MORE IRONIC
"your complete and utter ignorance in what your talking about reveals you to be the moron you are. as they say, i hope this helps".
please stop responding with idiocy. haha you never even opened a book
-
And the Truth was Spoken! Dawkowned!
haha you agreed with him, i was waiting for that, your a bigger moron ahahhhaha.
-
the fact that you don't even know who richard dawkins is or what his actual viewpoints are shows YOUR stupidity.
haha you keep replying in your moron meltdown. hahahahahahaahahahahhaha
i know his viewpoints you do not. ive read his books, watched him debate, you have not. his arguments are strawmen, go look that up so you can respond.
-
true, true. i was meaning it more in the sense of claiming authority while being so blaringly ignorant, but you're right i was a little vague. touche. ;D
everything you said was wrong and i backed it up with FACT. also im am well read on this subject much more then you as is obvious to anyone he reads this thread, this is a brutal owning.
oh yeah please post one of these great arguments, in your own words. evolution has nothing to due with god. a geneticist by the name of francis collins who mapped the genome disagrees with you to. biology in any facet has fucking zero relevance to the argument of god hope this helps.
godowned.
-
obsessive quadruple post MELTDOWN
-
Usmokepole...... talk about being obsessed
-
dude, usmoke, from your OWN LINK:
Amid this primordial soup of new paradigms, Richard Dawkins the ethologist rapidly mutated into an evolutionary biologist. In 1965, he hit upon an idea breathtakingly simple to understand but extraordinarily powerful in its implications. In essence, Dawkins argued for an ethology of the gene: How do genes communicate? How do genes behave differently in groups than they do as individuals? Why do genes cooperate? How do genes compete? The same questions ethologists ask about chicks and geese and chimpanzees are virtually identical to the sorts of questions they should be asking about the genome and its genes.
Others had played with this notion before, but Dawkins made it his own and aggressively pushed it into the mainstream of science culture.
As the first true ethologist of the gene, Dawkins de facto became an evolutionary biologist. How genes behave over time - which ones dominate, which ones die off, which ones cooperate, which ones compete, which ones change, which ones remain the same - is the very definition of an evolution based on the flow of information.
he started out as an ETHOLOGIST. what ethology? again, your own link...
Ethology, as Tinbergen constantly stressed, was a highly interdisciplinary biological science, requiring insights into psychology, physiology, ecology, sociology, taxonomy, and evolution.
dawkins had his degree in zoology but only in the sense that that a computer programmer has the same degree as someone who works on databases or a newspaper writer has the same degree as a magazine columnist. he was an ethologist who went to evolutionary biology. period. end of story.
-
dude, usmoke, from your OWN LINK:
Amid this primordial soup of new paradigms, Richard Dawkins the ethologist rapidly mutated into an evolutionary biologist. In 1965, he hit upon an idea breathtakingly simple to understand but extraordinarily powerful in its implications. In essence, Dawkins argued for an ethology of the gene: How do genes communicate? How do genes behave differently in groups than they do as individuals? Why do genes cooperate? How do genes compete? The same questions ethologists ask about chicks and geese and chimpanzees are virtually identical to the sorts of questions they should be asking about the genome and its genes.
Others had played with this notion before, but Dawkins made it his own and aggressively pushed it into the mainstream of science culture.
As the first true ethologist of the gene, Dawkins de facto became an evolutionary biologist. How genes behave over time - which ones dominate, which ones die off, which ones cooperate, which ones compete, which ones change, which ones remain the same - is the very definition of an evolution based on the flow of information.
he started out as an ETHOLOGIST. what ethology? again, your own link...
Ethology, as Tinbergen constantly stressed, was a highly interdisciplinary biological science, requiring insights into psychology, physiology, ecology, sociology, taxonomy, and evolution.
you dont understand the interplay of zoology and biology.
im a physicist, what type never mind, no need to state plasma, particle, etc just physicist. he became is a evolutionary biologist, a neo-darwian evolutionist which also fucks his cred more. gradual evolution does not occur, puntucated equilibria do, research gould if you want answers.
he studied zoology and was a professor of zoology, one of the pioneers in the new field and staunch neo darwinist.
-
i also never contended he was not a evolutionary biologist, it is possible to have many disciplines within biology, your the one who went ape shit over zoology and are wrong.
then you said the blind watchmaker isnt philosophical, which is also wrong.
and you didnt know the meaning of ignorance.
funny adonis calls me obsessed but posts under three or four gimmicks ahahah. why are you such a loser dude, are you gaining anything for all the net surfing ahahahah
-
i also never contended he was not a evolutionary biologist, it is possible to have many disciplines within biology, your the one who went ape shit over zoology and are wrong.
then you said the blind watchmaker isnt philosophical, which is also wrong.
and you didnt know the meaning of ignorance.
funny adonis calls me obsessed but posts under three or four gimmicks ahahah. why are you such a loser dude, are you gaining anything for all the net surfing ahahahah
Your grammatical skills are just horrifying. You are not capable of posting even one sentence in coherent English. I would suggest getting that GED after all.
-
i also never contended he was not a evolutionary biologist, it is possible to have many disciplines within biology, your the one who went ape shit over zoology and are wrong.
then you said the blind watchmaker isnt philosophical, which is also wrong.
and you didnt know the meaning of ignorance.
funny adonis calls me obsessed but posts under three or four gimmicks ahahah. why are you such a loser dude, are you gaining anything for all the net surfing ahahahah
usmokepole
Getbig IV
Posts: 1320
question
« Sent to: The True Adonis on: November 04, 2006, 02:18:37 PM » Quote Reply Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yo, i flame the shit out of you all the time. but got a serious question if you care to answer, what are your reasons for being an atheist, that is what foundation other then blind faith do you base your beleif on. im not religious, not a christian, i just wanted for intellectual purposes to hear why you choos atheism, nothing less nothing more. actual reasons not conjecture. ask this because you do seem like an intelligent person so id like to hear your arguements, not against christianity or a religion, but against a god.
peace
-
usmokepole
Getbig IV
Posts: 1320
question
« Sent to: The True Adonis on: November 04, 2006, 02:18:37 PM » Quote Reply Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yo, i flame the shit out of you all the time. but got a serious question if you care to answer, what are your reasons for being an atheist, that is what foundation other then blind faith do you base your beleif on. im not religious, not a christian, i just wanted for intellectual purposes to hear why you choos atheism, nothing less nothing more. actual reasons not conjecture. ask this because you do seem like an intelligent person so id like to hear your arguements, not against christianity or a religion, but against a god.
peace
:-\
-
:-\
This guy must be a real intellectual ::)
-
usmokepole
Getbig IV
Posts: 1320
question
« Sent to: The True Adonis on: November 04, 2006, 02:18:37 PM » Quote Reply Remove
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yo, i flame the shit out of you all the time. but got a serious question if you care to answer, what are your reasons for being an atheist, that is what foundation other then blind faith do you base your beleif on. im not religious, not a christian, i just wanted for intellectual purposes to hear why you choos atheism, nothing less nothing more. actual reasons not conjecture. ask this because you do seem like an intelligent person so id like to hear your arguements, not against christianity or a religion, but against a god.
peace
your point? you kept flaming on religious people without offering reasons, just wanted to know your reasons.
you never answered no big deal. i dont get what my pm to you has to due with anything. should i post the smiley face pm you sent me?
ahahahahahahahha, i was in a rush, hahahaha. im sure if you give me another crack at it i can spell choose right.
why are you posting as three different people? you a weird dude for sure.
spelling and grammer are not my strongpoints, similar to you and science.
-
spelling and grammer are not my strongpoints
Apparently logical argumentation is not your forte, either.
-
Apparently logical argumentation is not your forte, either.
how so?
-
how so?
The fact that you even have to ask that is clear evidence that what I said is true.
-
The fact that you even have to ask that is clear evidence that what I said is true.
great reply!!!!!!
the fact that im asking what is not logical about my argument proves something?
you just keep writing lies, and so on. you dont even form arguments ahaha
-
obsessive quadruple post MELTDOWN
LOL.
-
Scientology was founded by a science fiction writer.
True story.
Meh. Christianity has as a main character, a magical carpenter who can't die. ;)
-
A dose of reality check is in order.
-
How so? Adequate protein intake? What the hell is that? Don't you want to optimize everything? Not just one macro-nutrient?
And by the way, why are carbs so important, yet they aren't ESSENTIAL?!?!?! Answer me than prick.
exactly my thoughts, youngblood. what the fuck is he talking about??? carbs are the only non essential macro. i also like the statement..."any diet contains adequate protein"....come again?!?!?
-
actually here is the exact quote:
"Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet."
adonis...circa 2007.
this may be one of if not the, dumbest nutritional tenets ive ever seen !!!! lol!
-
actually here is the exact quote:
"Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet."
adonis...circa 2007.
this may be one of if not the, dumbest nutritional tenets ive ever seen !!!! lol!
Another top quality ::) post by "eastcoastbbman" (oh boy what an original name ::))
-
Another top quality ::) post by "eastcoastbbman" (oh boy what an original name ::))
cant beleive you said that shit, you get dumber by the minute.
-
A dose of reality check is in order.
dude i agree with most of the beefs with religions. i think people dont know of the arguments for or against a creator to be honest. creationism is bad science, im pro science.
i have many nobels on my desk with a pulitzer on the way, along with some templeton awards that are on top of my olympic golds.
-
Calories are calories when it comes to energy values.
Vince Goodrum was eating too many calories. Cutting Protein would be needed as excess Protein is just a waste.
Carbohydrates are far more important when it comes to bodybuilding as adequate protein intake is always met with any diet.
I just threw up in my mouth a little typing this but Adonis is right.
-
i have many nobels on my desk with a pulitzer on the way, along with some templeton awards that are on top of my olympic golds.
???
-
???
ive done things only few can dream of :D
-
So much for getting this thread back on track.....