Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

Cholesterol 232. Now what?

Notices
Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

Cholesterol 232. Now what?

Old 10-12-06, 08:55 AM
  #51  
Senior Member
 
Jarery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 2,538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I dont care what you think of the links, my point is you in your typical fashion making all kinds of totally false claims and presenting them as if their fact. "Widely acknowledged" ? By who? People who belong to your group?
Jarery is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 04:18 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarery
I dont care what you think of the links, my point is you in your typical fashion making all kinds of totally false claims and presenting them as if their fact. "Widely acknowledged" ? By who? People who belong to your group?
No these new claims are just the statin supporters fighting back but I can't see the evidence to back their claims.

Regards, Anthony
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 05:08 PM
  #53  
Senior Member
 
Jarery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 2,538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
No these new claims are just the statin supporters fighting back but I can't see the evidence to back their claims.

Regards, Anthony
Your the one making claims that it is Widely Acknowledged that statins rely soley on anti-inflamitory properties and any benefit from lipid lowering is zero. Widely acknowledged I take to mean 'a majority'. So show your proof.

Last edited by Jarery; 10-12-06 at 06:38 PM.
Jarery is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 05:42 PM
  #54  
SSP
Software for Cyclists
 
SSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Redding, California
Posts: 4,618

Bikes: Trek 5200, Specialized MTB

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarery
Your the one making claims that it is Widely Acknowledged that statins rely soley on anti-inflamitory properties and any benefit from lip lowering is zero. Widely acknowledged I take to mean 'a majority'. So show your proof.
In this context, "widely acknowledged" means "posted on a bunch of crackpot websites" and/or "published by a crackpot author", with no scientific backing.

Other examples of this include:

The folks who believe that jet trails are actually chemicals being sprayed on us by "a secret government conspiracy": https://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm.

The folks who believe that 9/11 was a secret government conspiracy to establish a New World Order: https://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/

The folks who believe that UFO's are "real".

The folks who believe that fluoride in our water supplies are "poisoning us", etc., etc.
SSP is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 10:04 PM
  #55  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What level of carbohydrates would be considered low in a diet? Do you have to be in ketosis for it to be a low carbohydrate diet? How many miles a week do you have to ride in order to be worthy of posting on this forum? What if you have a 10-12 hour a day job, a family, and a commute to deal with, are you not better off to limit carbohydrates in order to keep triglycerides down and thus LDL down?

What about this study r/t fats from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition?

https://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550

I work as a nurse and can tell you that I am still seeing the epidemic of heart disease passing by every day and am convinced that the major risk factor is blood glucose levels rather than cholesterol. Of couse, anything that goes against conventional wisdom is crackpot and heresy. Kind of make me feel like I might be in good company.

Either way, eat more fruit and vegetables, fish, fish oils, exercise and then you have to decide the other variables that everybody cannot agree upon. However, the above list is agreed upon by everything that I can find. Having suffered with metabolic syndrome, exercising as much as I can find time for and keeping the rest of my life together has lead me to believe that for my metabolism I have to be careful with carbohydrates.

If you accept evolutionary theory as a reality, there may be some truth to the low-carb ideas that are being tossed about. Do some research, don't think that it is all settled and make your choice and go for it.
obsidian is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 10:20 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
 
Jarery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 2,538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by obsidian
there may be some truth to the low-carb ideas that are being tossed about. Do some research, don't think that it is all settled and make your choice and go for it.
I think theres a lot of truth to them. I also think theres a lot of truth in weston price website, and the omnivore, and all the other differing views. In fact, we need differing views in order to allow research to progress forward.

There are actually quite a few low carb supporters on this forum. Most dont get 'targeted' by the masses. Only 2 i know of who stand on the soapbox and claim its the only 'right' way. That their way is proven with scientific fact, and ALL other views that differ from theirs are outright wrong and based on poor science. People who claim the few hundred studies supporting their views are scientific fact and show proof, but the thousands supporting the mainstream view show zero proof.

I have no problem with other views, in fact i encourage them, I do have a problem with some of the people who present them. I treat views the same way i treat my diet, that a balanced mix is better than a polar extreme.
Jarery is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 10:10 AM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
here's another crack in the lipid hypothesis...

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/health/17chol.html

Value of Cholesterol Targets Is Disputed
By RONI RABIN
A provocative review paper published this month has raised questions about the aggressive cholesterol-lowering recommendations made two years ago by a government panel.

The panel, the National Cholesterol Education Program, urged patients at risk for heart disease to reduce sharply their harmful LDL cholesterol and to try to reach specific, very low levels.

Though the authors of the new paper, published in the Oct. 3 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, endorse the use of cholesterol-lowering statins, they say there is not enough solid scientific evidence to support the target numbers for LDL cholesterol set forth by the government panel.

The authors’ argument challenges mainstream medical thinking and the consensus among most cardiologists that the lower the cholesterol is, the better.

Until 2004, an LDL cholesterol level of less than 130 milligrams a deciliter was considered low enough. But the updated guidelines recommend that high-risk patients reduce their level even more — to less than 100 — while patients at very high risk are given “the option” of reducing LDL cholesterol to less than 70. Patients often have to take more than one cholesterol-lowering drug to achieve those targets.

“This paper is not arguing that there is strong evidence against the LDL targets, but rather that there’s no evidence for them,” said Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, a study author, adding that this was largely because of the way clinical trials had been devised and carried out.

“If you’re going to say, ‘Take two or three drugs to get to these levels,’ you need to know you’re doing more benefit than harm,” said Dr. Hayward, who is director of the Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research and Development and a professor at the University of Michigan Medical School. He said he was particularly concerned because there was little long-term safety data about the drug combinations used to lower cholesterol.

Several scientists who participated in developing the panel’s guidelines acknowledged that the scientific evidence to support the goal recommendation of less than 70 was not as strong as it could be. But, they said, it is also a weaker recommendation.

“This is not a ‘Thou shalt,’ ” said Dr. James I. Cleeman, coordinator of the cholesterol education program. “It is not a hard and fast rule, and the evidence for it is not as strong.”

But, Dr. Cleeman said, there is “very very strong evidence” that patients who get their cholesterol under 100 benefit from a lower risk of coronary disease.

“There is tremendous evidence that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease; it’s not just along for the ride,” he said. “And no matter how we lower LDL — with drugs, a statin or other, surgery or diet or other means — the degree of lowering coronary risk is proportional to the degree of LDL lowering.”

“Do we know the final number that should be the LDL goal?” he asked. “That would be discussable.”

Clinical trials have demonstrated that statin use is beneficial and that high doses are more effective in patients at high risk than lower doses, the paper says. But statins have effects other than just lowering cholesterol, Dr. Hayward noted; they have anticlotting and anti-inflammatory effects, and the dose level may be more important than the LDL level achieved by the patient.

“As far as we know, statins are like aspirin,” he said. “Doctors tell patients to take an aspirin a day, but we don’t go back and check how much it thins their blood.”

Still, panels that develop guidelines cannot wait until all the scientific evidence is in, said Dr. David J. Gordon, special assistant for clinical studies at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute’s division of cardiovascular diseases. “They can’t meet and come out with a statement that says, ‘The evidence isn’t airtight, so we’ll give you recommendations in 10 years.’ ”

Dr. Gordon said the authors of the new paper had a point. “You could make the argument that if somebody has a heart attack, just give them a statin,” he said. “There is certainly an argument to be made for that.”

Dr. Sidney C. Smith Jr., a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina who was involved in the updated guidelines and is a former president of the American Heart Association, said the trends in studies of LDL levels and heart disease “continue to suggest that lower is better.”

But, Dr. Smith said, “we don’t know, as you get into the lower levels of LDL, that the benefit continues.” He added, “That’s why we need additional studies.”

Dr. Hayward and the other authors of the review paper, Dr. Timothy P. Hofer and Dr. Sandeep Vijan, said they examined all the studies that assessed the relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with LDL levels less than 130. But, they wrote, they were unable to identify studies that provided evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, independent of other factors, and that studies that had tried to do so had major flaws.

Dr. Vincenza Snow, the director of clinical programs and quality of care for the American College of Physicians, wrote a paper in 2004 that reached similar conclusions.

“All the lipid-lowering trials that have been done have tested a dose of a statin as opposed to either another dose of a statin or another drug,” Dr. Snow said. “They have never designed a trial to treat to a target.” All this treating to a target is not supported by the evidence. The evidence supports putting someone on a certain dose of a statin.”

Patients respond differently to statins, with some achieving more success in cholesterol reduction than others, Dr. Snow said. But, she said, “our goal is not necessarily to get to a certain level of cholesterol, but to decrease heart attacks and strokes, and you can reduce that risk with a certain dose of statin.”
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 10:29 AM
  #58  
Seńor Member
 
SimiCyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Simi Valley, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
Posts: 267

Bikes: 1996 GT Force, 1999 Cannondale R1000, 2006 Cannondale Synapse

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think you should re-read your own post. You may also want to read the actual paper:

https://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/145/7/520.pdf

They are only referring to the recent recommendation to lower LDL below 70. The benefit of lower LDL is acknowledged, as well as the use of statins, for patients with diagnosed CVD.
SimiCyclist is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 10:38 AM
  #59  
Riding Heaven's Highways on the grand tour
 
ModoVincere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Extracted directly from Mr. Freddy's post:

But, Dr. Cleeman said, there is “very very strong evidence” that patients who get their cholesterol under 100 benefit from a lower risk of coronary disease.

“There is tremendous evidence that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease; it’s not just along for the ride,” he said. “And no matter how we lower LDL — with drugs, a statin or other, surgery or diet or other means — the degree of lowering coronary risk is proportional to the degree of LDL lowering.”


Seems to argue that LDL #'s do matter.
__________________
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
ModoVincere is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 10:50 AM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lets not get all carried away, I just said it was a crack in the wall, not the damn bursting...

of course the researchers are still clinging to their cherished lipid hypothesis.. if nothing else that just reveals their obvious bias.

and yes, statins are beneficial for those with CVD. it's not clear that it helps via LDL lowering, however. as the article mentions, I believe...
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 10:56 AM
  #61  
Seńor Member
 
SimiCyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Simi Valley, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
Posts: 267

Bikes: 1996 GT Force, 1999 Cannondale R1000, 2006 Cannondale Synapse

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
and yes, statins are beneficial for those with CVD. it's not clear that it helps via LDL lowering, however. as the article mentions, I believe...
Maybe a pair of glasses are in order.
SimiCyclist is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 11:11 AM
  #62  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I dunno, did I misunderstand this?

Clinical trials have demonstrated that statin use is beneficial and that high doses are more effective in patients at high risk than lower doses, the paper says. But statins have effects other than just lowering cholesterol, Dr. Hayward noted; they have anticlotting and anti-inflammatory effects, and the dose level may be more important than the LDL level achieved by the patient.

“As far as we know, statins are like aspirin,” he said. “Doctors tell patients to take an aspirin a day, but we don’t go back and check how much it thins their blood.”
at any rate, it's amusing that the very people who demand longer term studies for low carb dont have any problem handing out dangerous drugs with serious side effects that have "little long-term safety data about the drug combinations used...", in an attempt to reach LDL levels for which "there is not enough solid scientific evidence to support..."
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 11:13 AM
  #63  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ModoVincere
Extracted directly from Mr. Freddy's post:

But, Dr. Cleeman said, there is “very very strong evidence” that patients who get their cholesterol under 100 benefit from a lower risk of coronary disease.

“There is tremendous evidence that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease; it’s not just along for the ride,” he said. “And no matter how we lower LDL — with drugs, a statin or other, surgery or diet or other means — the degree of lowering coronary risk is proportional to the degree of LDL lowering.”


Seems to argue that LDL #'s do matter.
"seems" being the key, operative word....

this is just the guy's opinion. Of course he believes in the lipid hypothesis. he's probably staked his career to it....
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 11:20 AM
  #64  
Seńor Member
 
SimiCyclist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Simi Valley, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way
Posts: 267

Bikes: 1996 GT Force, 1999 Cannondale R1000, 2006 Cannondale Synapse

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Regardless of issues about statins (I, for one, don't like them and have reduced my LDL without them), the article supports the "lipid hypothesis". This is just another example of posts you've made that contradict what you try to present. What's particularly funny about this, is that you also have done this on forums that support your position. Specifically, one of the authors you have frequently quoted and touted, Anthony Colpo, banned you from his forum characterizing you as an, "obnoxious ignoramus who has decided what he wants to believe and will not entertain any evidence that contradicts these beliefs".

https://www.lowcarbmuscle.com/forums/...read.php?p=935

Get a clue, dude.
SimiCyclist is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 12:40 PM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
yeah, anthony is a hothead, what can I say....

he's apparently a damn fine researcher tho, and I agree with his take regarding the lipid hypothesis, ie. it's pure bunk. why dont you go over there and present your ideas on THAT subject, see how he reacts, mmkay? meanwhile, ask him about 911 conspiracies, while yer at it.
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 03:42 PM
  #66  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by obsidian
Read The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo. It may help you see the "heretical" side. It has made a difference for me. Control you blood sugar, eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and save your liver from the statins.
I agree

Eat like this for a month and then re test you will be shocked

4 meals a day

1 tbs fish oil Daily
protein size of palm of hand Every meal
non starchy veggies unlimited Every meal
nuts small hand full or 1 tbs oil Every meal
max 20 gram carb from fruit/starchy veg per meal weekday
max 40 gram carb from fruit/starchy veg per meal weekend
Don't eat after 5pm except post workout everyday

only grass fed/free range meats
no grain or grain products
no refined or processed anything
no legumes
no sugars
no juice
no dairy
no salt
kmckay is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 04:13 PM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
heck, just boil it down to these parts and you'll see a world of difference:



no starchy veggies/high sugar fruits
no grain or grain products
no refined or processed anything
no legumes
no sugars
no juice
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 05:16 PM
  #68  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
heck, just boil it down to these parts and you'll see a world of difference:



no starchy veggies/high sugar fruits
no grain or grain products
no refined or processed anything
no legumes
no sugars
no juice
I agree, same difference really but best to spell it out IMO as a higher fat/ protien + ****ty carbs can be dangerous not something you wana 1/2 way do.

Do or do not
kmckay is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 05:19 PM
  #69  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
heck, just boil it down to these parts and you'll see a world of difference:



no starchy veggies/high sugar fruits
no grain or grain products
no refined or processed anything
no legumes
no sugars
no juice
Recent clinical studies have shown that lean protein-based diets are more effective in improving blood cholesterol and other blood lipid levels than are low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. High protein diets have also been shown to lower blood homocysteine levels, another risk factor for heart disease. When nutritionists abandoned meats as part of heart-healthy diets, they unknowingly threw out the baby with the bath water. It was the saturated fat that accompanied the lean protein that was harmful -- not the lean protein itself.

I would keep the meat

Also I eat steak {grassfed} and eggs {omega 3} chicken, turkey, fish with a little fruit and allot of vegies as my carb source and my numbers are way better than my high carb low fat/protien numbers.
kmckay is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 05:35 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
 
AnthonyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queanbeyan, Australia.
Posts: 4,135
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3450 Post(s)
Liked 420 Times in 289 Posts
Originally Posted by kmckay
Recent clinical studies have shown that lean protein-based diets are more effective in improving blood cholesterol and other blood lipid levels than are low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. High protein diets have also been shown to lower blood homocysteine levels, another risk factor for heart disease. When nutritionists abandoned meats as part of heart-healthy diets, they unknowingly threw out the baby with the bath water. It was the saturated fat that accompanied the lean protein that was harmful -- not the lean protein itself.

I would keep the meat

Also I eat steak {grassfed} and eggs {omega 3} chicken, turkey, fish with a little fruit and allot of vegies as my carb source and my numbers are way better than my high carb low fat/protien numbers.
Well your promoting a South Beach Diet now which I can't support. My view is that its just a "politicaly correct" Atkins diet anyway with not that much more thought.

High protein/low fat diets LACK nutrients which you need either fat OR carbohydrates for so actualy if someone can't handle the thought of a high fat diet I reccomend that they STAY on a high carbohydrate diet actualy.

See, https://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html

Regards, Anthony
AnthonyG is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 05:41 PM
  #71  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Well your promoting a South Beach Diet now which I can't support. My view is that its just a "politicaly correct" Atkins diet anyway with not that much more thought.

High protein/low fat diets LACK nutrients which you need either fat OR carbohydrates for so actualy if someone can't handle the thought of a high fat diet I reccomend that they STAY on a high carbohydrate diet actualy.

See, https://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html

Regards, Anthony
Scroll up, This is what I am promoting



4 meals a day

1 tbs fish oil Daily
protein size of palm of hand Every meal
non starchy veggies unlimited Every meal
nuts small hand full or 1 tbs oil Every meal
max 20 gram carb from fruit/starchy veg per meal weekday
max 40 gram carb from fruit/starchy veg per meal weekend
Don't eat after 5pm except post workout everyday

only grass fed/free range meats
no grain or grain products
no refined or processed anything
no legumes
no sugars
no juice
no dairy
no salt

lots of good fat and high nutrient denstity

Last edited by kmckay; 10-17-06 at 07:37 PM.
kmckay is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 07:13 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
 
Jarery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 2,538
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
he's apparently a damn fine researcher tho, .
Yes and it took him only 1 thread to come to this conclusion about you :

You are just an obnoxious ignoramus who has decided what he wants to believe and will not entertain any evidence that contradicts these beliefs

You really are a fool.

Like I said, this forum is for intelligent, open-minded folks who wish to advance their knowledge, not time wasting, close-minded devotees of a particular system, devotees that claim they want a rational exchange of ideas but then proceed to ignore any evidence that doesn't support their view.
That cracks me up. The opinion of you seems universal.
Jarery is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 07:21 PM
  #73  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jarery
Yes and it took him only 1 thread to come to this conclusion about you :



That cracks me up. The opinion of you seems universal.
Compliments will get you nowhere
kmckay is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 07:35 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hahaa, anthony is well known for his name calling...

check out what he posted on the greeting for me

You have been banned for the following reason:
User is not intelligent, open-minded, and mature enough for this forum.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
anthony and I may disagree about the value of training to failure, and I guess I may have overreacted to his strident and agressive writing style, I dunno. I have to read that again some day... but the guy does know his **** when it comes to the lipid hypothesis and the value of a low carb diet for an active lifestyle.

what this has to do with anything at all in this thread is beyond me. I guess you're back to attacking the messenger instead of the message, as usual.
mrfreddy is offline  
Old 10-17-06, 07:40 PM
  #75  
Senior Member
 
kmckay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 147
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't know where either of you guys stand on training to failure but I never do it, I stay just under and have packed on allot of lean mass ala xfit.

Opps did not mean to hijack as this current issue is one of import let me know the appropriate thread and I would love to debate I have tons of data. At some point I will start a flame war regarding lsd traing moohwahwahwa!
kmckay is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.