Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (137777)	1/25/2002 6:34:47 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> first of all, quite cherry picking which posts you respond to << i have 26 messages in my ibbox to respond to. i'll get to the rest when i get to them. have i ever turned tail and hid from an argument before? i think you should know by now that i will answer all your questions in due course. i think you have me mixed up with victor, who never answers anyone. >> where are all the atkins super athletes? << who cares. >> where is anybody on atkins competing at a high athletic level? where? where? where? rotflmao! << i need to go dredge up a bunch of athletes to prove to you that the principles behind diets like atkins are sound? dr sears stole the principles from dr atkins in the first place. i'm not going to waste my time. you seem to be stuck on testimonials and anecdotes. like i said, stick to the facts. >> no, you are being ignorant of the zone diet. the general recommendation is 0.5 to 1.0 grams of protein per lb of lean body mass. 0.5 is sedentary. 1.0 is highly athletic. << i guess i have to repeat myself. your numbers don't add up. take the average man who weighs let's say 175 pounds. let's say he has 135 pounds of lean muscle mass. let's take 0.7g/pound of protein which is for moderate training or sports participation 3 times a week. 0.7 times 135 pounds of lean muscle mass gives us a total of 94.5 grams. let's multiply that by 4 calories to the gram of protein. 378 calories. using a standard 2000 calorie diet for men that would equate to just under 19% of calories from protein. that leaves 81% to be divided into fat and carbs. assuming you eat 40% carbs that means your diet must be 41% fat! weren't you the one just telling me good luck with my high fat diet? or is it more like 30% fat, 51% carbs? i hope not, because 19% protein, 51% carbs, and 30% fat is not much different than the pyramid diet! the only other explanation would be if you eat like only 1500 calories per day. that's awfully low unless you're trying to lose weight. if you eat 1500 calories per day than i suppose 0.7 would equate to somewhere around 25% calories from protein. that would leave 40% carb and 35% fat. that's a fairly high fat diet there guy. much higher than the government and most dieticians recommend. like i said, i don't see how your numbers add up unless you eat like a bird and consume very few calories, such as less than 1500. >> read what i wrote again. concentrate this time. you can do math, can't you? those figures are adjustable, however, 0.5 is a very realistic number for many folks. << i did the math knucklehead. when i use the figure of 0.5g/pound lean body mass the numbers are even more skewed. a 2000 calorie diet with 0.5g protein on 135 pounds of lean muscle mass comes to 13-14% protein intake. how is that any different than the typical diet the mainstream advocates??? >> why on earth would i eat more protein than my body requires to support (or slowly build) its lbm? that is stoopit, stoopit, stoopit, imho, and serve NO PURPOSE. think about it. << i dunno, why would you eat more carbs than are necessary to fuel (your claim not mine) that pea brain of yours? >> the purpose of eating is to nourish the body and, hopefully, enjoy some good tasting food << mine does that. >> it isn't to trick your body into starvation mode << i never claimed my diet tricked my body into anything--including starvation mode. that is your slant--which is incorrect. >> and then stuff your face with protein than your body can use - gluttony, pure and simple. << come closer. press your nose up against the monitor. i have a little secret for you. my body has a nifty way of keeping me from fat/protein gluttony. when i feed my body nutrient dense, healthy, sustaining food, a little trigger goes off in my brain telling me to stop eating. when my body wants more protein/fat it lets me know, and i oblige. it's a simple concept, you should look into it. >> the irony is that both you and vic are on the opposite sides of the spectrum and neither of knows what you are talking about wrt the zone. << yes, once again i am the one who has it wrong. you are the expert on not only dr adkins (as you mispelled it), but the zone as well. only you have yet to explain to me how you come up with a 40/30/30 split on 90 grams of protein a day. i suppose if you starve yourself and eat 1200 calories a day 90 grams of protein would come out to 30%. >> you think it is extreme, as does victor << you either have a real reading comprehension problem or you just enjoying telling lies. perhaps you're lightheaded from too few calories on the zone diet. i never said the zone was "extreme". the zone is not extreme enough in my opinion. it's too wishy washy and moderate, catering to popular misconceptions like avoiding egg yolks and trying to limit fat to an excessive degree. >> in fact, it is a moderate, well thought out diet << obviously that's what attracts you to it. you are the king of moderation. moderation in politics, moderation in the stock market (i.e. hardly any participation), and moderation in your diet. instead of having the fortitude or courage or determination or chutzpah or whatever you want to call it to decide what's right and take a firm stance on that position, you hem and haw and waver and qualify everything you do. fine by me, but it sure makes for boring conversation. you should be a politician. they are masters of trying to find the position that is most moderate and will please the most people. >> the atkins diet hasn't done butkis in that regard and i have to question why? why? << go ask him. i'm not a spokesman for atkins. it just happens that his diet and protein power are the closest to resembling my diet. i also like his style in taking on the mainstream medical community. perhaps he is more interested in helping people learn to eat the right way rather than the zone method of ripping of someone else's idea and securing a few celebrity endorsements so you can sell a few books. >> we KNOW the zone supports peak performance in some folks at the olympic athlete level. we don't know butkis about atkins. << we KNOW that there are probably more athletes on high carb low-fat diets than on the zone diet. so your fallacious logic just got blown out of the water. after all, you and mr sears have both said hi-carb diets are misguided. so if there are significant numbers of olympic athletes that eat hi-carb low-fat diets and that's the wrong way to eat, then you have proof right there that simply because some famous athletes follow a certain way of eating doesn't mean it's any more correct than any other diet. how's that for an inference? eh?