Training & Nutrition - hemprider-this is for you

hey hemprider (or anyone else),i always look forward to your posts about the large number of dates or fruit you are eating. what exactly is the diet you are on? it has me kind of interested. do you think that one woudl lose a lot of weight if they went on it for 2 months or so?

Hey fatslowbiker! Glad to see you are interested in this awesome diet! I'm on a diet called the 80/10/10 diet which refers to the macro nutrient profile(80% carbs, 10% fat, 10% protien). The Diet is a raw vegan diet which is essentially mass amounts of sweet fruit with some greens and a little bit of overt fats(avocado, nuts, seeds). If your truly interested in the diet I recommend you pick up a copy of Dr. Doug Grahams Book the 80/10/10 diet(Check it out on amazon or check out Dr.D's website foodnsport.com) or check out www.30bananasaday.com (http://www.30bananasaday.com) which is a message forum for people following the diet.

I personally have lost about 100 pounds on this diet and feel it would be an awesome tool for losing your excess weight and reaching your full potential.

Another site to take a look at, http://www.vegsource.com/talk/raw/index.html . Dr doug graham answers questions personally on this site and it always has good info

127402

For a lifestyle, not a diet, this works. Although a Certified Sports Nutritionist, I simply tell clients and folks that the Mediterranean Food Pyramid is about the healthiest way to eat.

127402

For a lifestyle, not a diet, this works. Although a Certified Sports Nutritionist, I simply tell clients and folks that the Mediterranean Food Pyramid is about the healthiest way to eat.

80/10/10 is a lifestyle about more than just what you eat, every program is called a diet even your glorified "Mediterranean Diet". The Mediterranean Food Pyramid is BS. The only reason Mediterranean people are healthy is because they eat more fresh fruit than the average person. Do yourself a favor shootingcoach and try the 80/10/10 diet, if you do it correctly you'll realize you have found the holy grail for sports nutrition and general health.

Might I suggest you read "The Schwarzein Principle"? She explains the chemistry in your body and how it responds to what you put into it.

Might I suggest you read "The Schwarzein Principle"? She explains the chemistry in your body and how it responds to what you put into it.

Another high protien, high fat diet that will not work long term. Especially for athletes or anyone interested in general fitness

127402

For a lifestyle, not a diet, this works. Although a Certified Sports Nutritionist, I simply tell clients and folks that the Mediterranean Food Pyramid is about the healthiest way to eat.

Apparently this is similar to my diet. Go figure.

Another high protien, high fat diet that will not work long term. Especially for athletes or anyone interested in general fitness

I agree with you on the point of athletes, but most people who want to lose a significant amount of weight are not athletes. For the portion of the population who just want to lose weight, diets like Atkins actually do work. The studies that have pitted the Zone, Mediterranean, Atkins, and macronutrient distribution diets have favored Atkins in terms of weight loss. As far as I know, the longest of these has been a year.

Concerns about the immediate effects of a diet like Atkins on blood lipids also seem unfounded, as they were not significantly changed after a year (most blood cholesterol is endogenous, anyhow). This isn't to say that, on a longer timeline, there wouldn't be negative consequences, or that lipids are the whole story; a year is obviously not enough to study the impacts of lifestyle choices, and sugars are also implicated in aging (e.g. formation of advanced glycation end-products, in food and the body). Then again, the maintenance phase of Atkins does not entirely exclude plants, as many vegetables do not contain large doses of carbohydrate. It is conceivable that one could follow such a plan and still be consuming siginificant plant matter. As far as gimmicks go, it's far better than most.

I think the larger problem with diets in developed areas is that they are processed and calorically, rather than nutritionally, dense. Many cultures have thrived on their own native diets, which include all ranges of macronutrient distributions; this is what diets such as the Mediterranean are getting at, really. You could create a diet plan formed around the ideals of the Inuit, who, historically, also had far lower rates of chronic disease. Your main challenge here would be finding whale blubber. You'd still be eating real, whole foods, which is much of the problem in a developed society.

Dear Hemprider

The MFP is not a "magic bullet" for the grossly overweight, but for folks who want to live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

It seems that not everyone who has tried the "diet" has had good results. Some folks have had severe health issues. The good "Doctor" is a Chiropractor. One wonders where he got his education in nutrition?

Make sure things you recommend are not going to cause anyone problems. The MFP can be used with good results by anyone without issues.

It always boils down to the formula of calories in < calories out.
Some people choose intermittent fasting, some people choose low carb, some people choose high fat, some people choose high protein, some people choose high carb, some people choose the weight loss modified version of SAD (100 calorie packs, anyone?).
Losing weight is simple. Really simple. Dont buy into any industry that thrives off of telling you that you are doing it wrong. It will always be calories in vs. calories out.
"Eat less, move more." - Brad Pilon.

Dear Hemprider

The MFP is not a "magic bullet" for the grossly overweight, but for folks who want to live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

No one said it was, neither is the 80/10/10 diet.


It seems that not everyone who has tried the "diet" has had good results. Some folks have had severe health issues. The good "Doctor" is a Chiropractor. One wonders where he got his education in nutrition?

The only people who get "severe health issues" are the people who fail to eat enough calories. I think you would agree you would have problems on any diet if you didn't get enough calories. Don't go trashing something you've never done. You don't need education in nutrition to know fruits and vegetables are the best thing for you, so why not eat exclusively fruits and vegetables? Most M.D.'s have very little knowledge of nutrition, doctors used to recommend smoking cigarettes...


Make sure things you recommend are not going to cause anyone problems. The MFP can be used with good results by anyone without issues.

As can the 80/10/10 program. The thread was addressed at me based on my diet, he never asked shootingcoach what his opinion was, so stop trying to jack the thread. Maybe actually read the 80/10/10 diet, do it for awhile and then make an opinion. Shootingcoach this diet is not for you, you do not want optimal health

hey hemprider (or anyone else)

"anyone else" certainly sounds like an open invitation to me

@fatslowbiker, never mind the naysayers. If your interested in getting fit and turning your life around feel free to PM me and i can give you a complete outline of the program and what to do.

I don't think anyowne would disagree that fruits and veggies are great foods. Personally though, I like a little meat (venison, beef, chicken, fish). I think a bit more protein can't hurt, but I'm no Dr. or nutritionist. I say everything in moderation.

I don't think anyowne would disagree that fruits and veggies are great foods. Personally though, I like a little meat (venison, beef, chicken, fish). I think a bit more protein can't hurt, but I'm no Dr. or nutritionist. I say everything in moderation.

Seems like a little extra protein will hurt...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6710896/Vegetarian-low-protein-diet-could-be-key-to-long-life.html

ummm yeah that test had very little to do with humans. They tested flies and basically said since we share some genes with flies the results may work for humans as well...but they didn't test humans...they just extrapolated their findings would work. I'm sure we share a few genes with some houseplants as well if I'm not mistaken. They didn't even bother to tell us how much longer the flies lived or even what their health was like. Perhaps they did live significantly longer but did they perform as well as they did when they had the protein? Their study was intended to extend the lifespan and nothing more. Well there are plenty of ways for me to live longer but that doesn't mean I live better. Give me the case study for this thing. I'd take quality over quantity any day.

ummm yeah that test had very little to do with humans. They tested flies and basically said since we share some genes with flies the results may work for humans as well...but they didn't test humans...they just extrapolated their findings would work. I'm sure we share a few genes with some houseplants as well if I'm not mistaken. They didn't even bother to tell us how much longer the flies lived or even what their health was like. Perhaps they did live significantly longer but did they perform as well as they did when they had the protein? Their study was intended to extend the lifespan and nothing more. Well there are plenty of ways for me to live longer but that doesn't mean I live better. Give me the case study for this thing. I'd take quality over quantity any day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study - Human evidence.

I'd take quality over quantity any day.

This clearly isn't true or else your would be following the 80/10/10 program :)

We share 25% of our genes with bananas. Does that make it cannibalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study - Human evidence.Or not . . .
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html

Or not . . .
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/chinastudy.html

Not that i necessarily believe the china study entirely but dismissing it all as false because some dude with a bachelors degree in history tried to debunk it is pretty ignorant. Whether or not the china study has any bearing isn't really that relevant, its a fact you only need ~5% protien or less and its been proven by the most accurate source possible.
Nature. Breast milk contains 6% protien by calories, infancy is where human protien needs are at there peak as babies are growing extremely fast

You don't need education in nutrition to know fruits and vegetables are the best thing for you, so why not eat exclusively fruits and vegetables?

Because maybe there's a diet that includes fruits vegetables and something else that's healthier than just fruits and vegetables?

Because maybe there's a diet that includes fruits vegetables and something else that's healthier than just fruits and vegetables?

Nothing is healthier then just fruits and vegetables

I was trying to point out how that was faulty logic. Assuming that no food can exist which could augment a fruit/vegetable diet because fruits/vegetables are generally accepted as the healthiest food is not logical

FWIW: zoologists observing animals in the wild conclude that they go out of their way to consume the widest possible variety of foods, even choosing to eat a little of some foods they actively dislike. Diversity is a smart evolutionary strategy.

Posted by Hemprider:

Breast milk contains 6% protien by calories, infancy is where human protien needs are at there peak as babies are growing extremely fast
You keep saying this, but it doesn't mean anything.
Reference: http://www.pediatriconcall.com/fordoctor/diseasesandcondition/NUTRITIONINCHILDHOOD.asp
1. There is a lot more to growing than protein. Gross calories are more important, though since they don't really do much other than look around and sleep (and they are very small), they don't need that many, in absolute terms. They consume on the order of we'll say 500 kcal (from the chart, 5 kg mass, 100 kcal/kg, which is a lot of energy per unit mass). Fat is crucial to the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, and the formation of the developing nervous system.
2. The protein in breast milk is of the highest quality for human digestion. Higher quality means you need less of it.
3. Infants between the ages of 0-6 months still need around 2 g of protein per kg of body mass (which is only 10 g/day, for a 5 kg baby). Per unit of body mass, they are actually consuming a high-protein diet. Not by percent of calories, but the protein is there. 2 g/kg is not far removed from the upper limit recommended for training athletes (depending who you ask, that's 1.7 to 2 g/kg per day). And 2 g/kg would put me at 140 g per day, which would be 12-14% of my daily caloric intake, given my build and level of activity. There is plenty of room for the consumption of healthy fats, carbohydrates to fuel my riding, running, and lifting, and nutrient-dense plant matter.

People also don't really grow very quickly, from a zoological persepctive. We are heavily k-selected, not even reaching full physical maturity until about 20 years. Yes, sexual maturity is sooner, but the musculature is still developing in men until early adulthood. We also don't have nearly as much mass as many mammals, so our milk is of course lower in protein and raw calories because we aren't gaining large amounts of muscle and fat a day. A 3 kg infant at birth might be 10 kg at one year; a large % gain, but small in absolute terms. That's roughly 15 lb, an amount of mostly lean weight that many properly-nourished, weight training (and previously relatively untrained) adult can gain in a matter of months.

Simply put: yes, there are valid arguments for my diet to be higher is protein, both in amount and as a percentage of calories, than an infant's. Upward of 2 g/kg is the standard recommendation for hard-training athletes (I do not recover properly without it), so unless I eat about 10000 kcal a day, my protein intake will not be as low as 6% (the amount you cited for breast milk). YMMV, as we are different people, but the arguments are there.

I am certainly not knocking your 80/10/10 diet (it actually works out to being comparable to my idea of a healthy diet, though 80% CHO would be a lot for me), but the breast milk comparisons are bogus.

Edit: Additionally, if you've ever looked at a baby, they're all head (about 1/3 of body length at birth). Necessarily, this means they are less muscle; not a lot of muscle inside the head. Though growing, the lower protein cost of maintaining a small amout of skeletal muscle is evolutionarily beneficial. The nervous system and organs can develop more because they have better access to protein (and fats) without the competition from muscle cells. Again, it comes down to protein in g or g/kg, rather than % of calories. They need small amounts in g and % of kcal, but large amounts in terms of g/kg.

The feeding patterns of infants also help. They are fed frequently for several reasons. They need a lot of calories (100ish) per unit of mass. Frequent feedings also provides carbs and fat to spare protein so that it can be used structurally, rather than for energy production. Doesn't everyone know someone who was thrilled their newborn slept through the night, only to have someone tell them they're an idiot for not waking them to be fed?

The figures you posted support my theory. Even based on your 500 calories which is low, babies would still be at the 8% mark. Babies clearly need 2g/kg of body weight being much smaller then a full grown adult, this figure is more then double what the rda recommends and 4 times the amount the WHO recommend. What it comes down too is you can eat higher protien but will it really be beneficial?? Probably not.

Upon off-forum communication with Hemprider, if he is honest about his physical condition, 6'2" at 145 lbs, this is the ragged edge of emaciation. A better name for this "diet" might be the Auschwitz Diet. At 63, I am 5' 11" at 160 lbs, running about 9% BF. I am fairly muscular, since I work out 10 days in a row, and take two days off. I train folks for a living, and am a licensed State Certified Trainer. However, if a fellow wants to look like a Death Camp resident, who am I to interfere?

I’ve come to a point in my life where I’ve seen my own fanaticism and extremism, and I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of it in myself and I especially don’t want to immerse myself in such a culture. The most irritating people I come across in the diet arena are vegans. Self-righteous, morally superior, egotistical, hostile, militant, and absolutely closed-minded. They insist that because veganism works for them that it works for all and is a moral imperative, which just isn’t the case. They just can’t seem to leave others be.

Check with your physician or a competent nutritionist before embarking on this possibly unhealthy and unrealistic venture. That is all I have to say on the matter.

I have been following the 80-10-10 for 2 years now.I am still transitioning and eating cooked foods on occasions.The 80-10-10 is all about direction and not speed.You need to take your time with it.We are addicted to the foods that we consume so we are always ready to defend our eating habits.

The thing is, with 80-10-10 you need to give it time.At least 6 months, and then you really start to see the changes.You notice a dramatic loss in weight right away but this seems so insignificant after experiencing the other benefits. It changes you to the core-spiritually,mentally,and physically.



127826

Upon off-forum communication with Hemprider, if he is honest about his physical condition, 6'2" at 145 lbs, this is the ragged edge of emaciation. A better name for this "diet" might be the Auschwitz Diet. At 63, I am 5' 11" at 160 lbs, running about 9% BF. I am fairly muscular, since I work out 10 days in a row, and take two days off. I train folks for a living, and am a licensed State Certified Trainer. However, if a fellow wants to look like a Death Camp resident, who am I to interfere?

I’ve come to a point in my life where I’ve seen my own fanaticism and extremism, and I’m just tired of it. I’m tired of it in myself and I especially don’t want to immerse myself in such a culture. The most irritating people I come across in the diet arena are vegans. Self-righteous, morally superior, egotistical, hostile, militant, and absolutely closed-minded. They insist that because veganism works for them that it works for all and is a moral imperative, which just isn’t the case. They just can’t seem to leave others be.

Check with your physician or a competent nutritionist before embarking on this possibly unhealthy and unrealistic venture. That is all I have to say on the matter.

I am not a vegan, or vegetarian, but I have talked to doctors and a few certified dieticians about changing to a vegetarian diet. Each of them says that you can easily become a vegetarian and not risk anything to your health. Each person has their own views, and different reports come out from different universities all the time on what causes cancer, extreme fat/obese people, etc.... I think that I don't know enough about the 80/10/10 diet, but I will do some reading about it. I am not an extremist, but I will read about different things and make a decision on my own.

Upon off-forum communication with Hemprider, if he is honest about his physical condition, 6'2" at 145 lbs, this is the ragged edge of emaciation. A better name for this "diet" might be the Auschwitz Diet.

You have not seen me irl or even know how i look. 145 is a estimate first off, my weight fluctuates between 140-160, right now i feel I'm on the lower of the scale tho. 145 at 6'2" is in no way emaciation level as you claim. I have more muscle mass and a stronger core then i have ever had in my life, granted its still not at the level i like but trying to attack me based on a stat i gave you, in a private Pm by the way, is ridiculous. Sounds like you couldn't handle the info i gave you about your grain based cancer diet. I don't insist my diet will work for everyone, i know it for a fact. Humans are naturally frugivores, we aren't grain eaters as you would like to think.

People always turn to attacks when they feel threatened, I can assure you of this tho i am in no way emaciated or close to concentration camp status. I'm not fanatical or extremism if i felt this diet was making me less then i wouldn't be on it, I've tried almost every diet including your beloved Mediterranean diet and this has been the only one to unleash my full potential.

Another fact i would like to mention, i train every day of the week usually with various body weight exercises. Thanks to my diet i never have to take rest days, my body is always ready to go. I would like too see you do that on your grain based diet.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT0Bg8K9rs4&feature=related

Lets see you do that on your cooked grain diet.

Not me by the way, i would post a picture of myself but I have no access to a camera and don't really feels its necessary. At this point in my journey I don't feel I'm the best indicator of whats fully possible on this diet as i have only been doing 80/10/10 for 2 months now, transitioning between various variations for about 6 months.

This brings up another good point a couple months ago i did a somewhat 80/10/10 where i ate lots of sourdough bread, fruits and sprouts. After a month i was totally constipated from the bread, i had yeast outbreaks all over my feet and general lack of energy. My brother expierenced the same exact symptoms. After switching back to full 80/10/10 I started actually eliminating on a regular basis, the mould growth went away over night and my energy levels shot thru the roof. Doesn't seem very fanatical to me (I loved that sourdough bread :( )

not an attack Hemp....but 6'2" and 145 does seem on the slim side. I'm 5' 9" and weigh 168.5 this morning. I have a LBM of 143 lbs based on the tanita scale I use, calculated as follows: 14% body fat (a bit higher then I want, but in the healthy range). 14% of 168.5 = 23.5.
168.5-23.5 = 145 lbm.
Its not 100% accurate, I know, but I can't imagine how I could ever get down into the 140's and not look too skinny.

Its not 100% accurate, I know, but I can't imagine how I could ever get down into the 140's and not look too skinny.

I don't retain water weight because my diet contains no salt. That's like 10-20 pounds. If i was too skinny my ribs would be poking out and my stomach sucked in. Neither of which is true. I actually haven't weighed my self in a month or so, last time i actually weighed myself i was 150ish, i might be heavier because I've definitely gained muscle since then but I've also lost body fat. Trying to compare my weight to someone who eats cooked food and excess salt won't get you anywhere. The weight charts are extremely skewed for this very reason

I don't retain water weight because my diet contains no salt. That's like 10-20 pounds. If i was too skinny my ribs would be poking out and my stomach sucked in. Neither of which is true. I actually haven't weighed my self in a month or so, last time i actually weighed myself i was 150ish, i might be heavier because I've definitely gained muscle since then but I've also lost body fat. Trying to compare my weight to someone who eats cooked food and excess salt won't get you anywhere. The weight charts are extremely skewed for this very reason

As it is, you can count every one of my ribs from 10 ft away. I stick with what I said. If it works for you, go for it. I'm a bit leary of having that little a protein in my diet with the workouts I do, and too many carbs aren't good for my blood sugars.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT0Bg...eature=related

Lets see you do that on your cooked grain diet.

Do you really think that there's nobody who eats a "regular" cooked grain diet can do those things?

Honestly those "feats" didn't seem all that impressive. This is more impressive: (especially at 3:00)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfsTKfUT-RQ

Hemp's report of 145lbs being his low weight isn't too far off of the medical recommendation of ideal weight (low of 148):

http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/medical.htm

I'm 72 inches tall and weigh 140-145, usually closer to 145. I consume 3000-4000 (on a more healthy 70/15/15 diet) calories daily and have a heck of a time packing on weight. Everyone is built different, within reason.

I used to be a 100% meat and potatoes person, but have worked in 2-3 vegetarian breakfasts/dinners per week lately. I'm starting to see the benefit and will probably ramp it up to at least half my meals being vegetarian. Unlike mister "pie in the sky" hemprider, I would never claim that diet can cure all. But I am learning that having the occasional meal with no meat helps me feel better overall.

[URL]
... i have only been doing 80/10/10 for 2 months now, transitioning between various variations for about 6 months.


I'm a vegetarian, and am all for doing whatever works best for you. I will say that Hemprider, you do seem to be awfully sure of yourself and awfully militant about a diet that we now find out you've been following for such a short time. From the way you go on about this diet I had assumed you had been doing it for years. If it works for you that's absolutely wonderful, but I would suggest that you dial down your evangelism until you've been on the diet for considerably longer.

The closest thing to hemprider's specs I know of are a couple of featherweight cagefighters who at my height of 5'11" have to seriously drop a lot of weight to make their class. Its harsh. I haven't weighed that much since sophomore year highschool and even then it was because I had to make weight for the wrestling team. One arm pushups on a park bench is nothing compared to a hundred yards of bear walks for talking during coaches time.

I don't retain water weight because my diet contains no salt. That's like 10-20 pounds.

I don't know if not eating salt would cause a difference of a couple gallons of water.

Has anyone here read Richard Wrangham's new book, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human? I'm about halfway through it right now and it's a very good read.

The first chapter is a pretty comprehensive review of the literature on why humans are generally not able to thrive on a raw-food diet. In terms of the evolutionary argument, he says that more than 50% of women on raw-food diets stop menstruating, and that a diet that reduces the reproductive capacity of more than half of the population is not one that would lead to the long-term success of that population.

Haven't finished the book yet so I'm not going to re-hash his larger argument here, but it's worth checking out if you're interested in the topic.

I am also a recovered militant vegan so I know how futile it is to engage in these debates with true believers, but I wanted to recommend the book...

Check out this 811'ers blog

http://www.30bananasaday.com/profiles/blogs/50-mile-ultra-marathon-race-1

Impressive running, but I get pretty annoyed at the irrationality of attributing it to their diet. If how they eat is so superior, they should dominate anybody who _doesn't_ eat their magical diet, which never seems to be the case. People have broken world records eating chicken mcnuggets.

Impressive running, but I get pretty annoyed at the irrationality of attributing it to their diet. If how they eat is so superior, they should dominate anybody who _doesn't_ eat their magical diet, which never seems to be the case. People have broken world records eating chicken mcnuggets.

haha photos of old Tour de France riders lighting up and taking in a beer comes to mind

I will let Michael Arnstein (http://organicathlete.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=557926) explain.

I will let Michael Arnstein explain.

Explain what? I listened to the first 15 minutes and I didn't hear any explanations. It wasn't going anywhere so I had to shut it off.

Your so AngrySaki... you should eat more fruit.

Your so AngrySaki... you should eat more fruit.

From the 80/10/10 blog: "All I wanted to do was talk about how I only eats raw low fat fruit and vegetables and I could run so fast today!" (in the context of: him placing second because he felt like he could slow down near the end of a 50 mile race.)
New argument: Does eating a diet that consists of raw fruits and raw vegetables, and ONLY raw fruits and raw vegetables, turn you into a boring fruit/vegetable that can only talk about eating raw fruits and raw vegetables?
I ask, because there doesn't seem like much else is talked about.

I actually listened to the whole thing and learned something...lol nah I'm just kidding I did listen to the whole thing though all the while eating a hot dog with my dog (who also had a hot dog) and he went on about how animals in the wild aren't fat cause they eat raw food...well how about the fact that they are in constant survival mode and have no time to stop and smell the roses while enjoying a delicious peach glazed duck with rizzotto and instead are in a constant search for food and trying not to get eaten by something else. Most of it just sounded preachy and he even went on to say that cooked food is addictive! Seriously? That's our problem? My hot dog is crack. In the future when everyone switches to the new wonder diet, dealers are gonna be standing on corners with hot dogs jammed in their pockets. The dude is no doubt fit and a damn good runner but he doesn't come out and say he's a good runner. He just claims its his diet. Its his diet nevermind the fact that he trains hard for it and that perhaps he was built for the sport. I would bet he could do it under a different diet. All those videos of "look what I can do on the diet" are hilarious because of course they can do that, they train for it. What would they look like if they just sat on their butts all day? They wouldn't be runnin marathons for sure.

O.K forget about the 80-10-10- and the Raw Vegans. What about The Cyclists Training Bible. " .....grains,meats,nuts,beans,dairy,fish,and eggs,increase the bloods acidity.If your diet is high in these and low in fruits and vegetables,you can expect to lose muscle mass and bone calcium as you age".

Anyway,to each his own.This way works for me so I will be sticking with it.