ex_banana-eater

The plant sterols found in soy are extremely weak forms of estrogen, I've heard 1/1000th the strength. In theory, they are beneficial to someone who wants to lower the effects of estrogen, because they bind to estrogen receptor sites rather than estrogen itself. A weaker sterol binding to the site rather than the more active hormone would manifest less of an effect on the body. Essentially, they act as a selective estrogen reuptake modulator. However, since they are in such low amount in any food, there will be negligable positive hormonal effects (and if these produced a negative effect it would be too negligable to notice either--but they do not.) I do not suggest you eat whey protein at times other than around your workout. Whey is digested extremely quickly, and at times other than when the muscles are extremely insulin sensitive (workout and after) most of the whey will quickly be converted via gluconeogenesis to glucose. Effectively, you're getting some expensive sugar. In addition, during meals you want a slower digesting protein because something like whey will provide only a short influx of amino acids to the muscles, therefore leaving them deprived for the next two hours or so. Most protein bars are full of the worst type of carbohydrates for a bodybuilder's diet--sugar alcohols, maltodextrine, dextrose, and others. You want carbohydrates low on the glycemic index during periods of the day that are not around a work out, because they help increase protein synthesis, provide a steadier stream of energy, and prevent your muscles from losing insulin sensitivity (cause of diabetes and fat gain). Something better to bring to work might be: Some containers of stir fried beef strips and vegetables with brown rice, cooked in olive oil.

Why steer clear of soy protein bars, Inspector? Also, why whey bars as a meal replacement?

The answer, for me, depends on what I am doing. This summer I embarked on an olympic lifting and athletic routine, and switched my diet more akin to paleolithic nutrition and maintenance level calories. If I am dietting with the goal to preserve muscle mass, I have a diet low in calories and then raise them dramatically to spike leptin periodically. If I am gaining muscle (and it depends on what extent) I will generally incorporate more post-agricultural carbohydrates into my diet. I still make sure to eat foods that are basic on the potential renal acid load score in order to avoid low grade metabolic acidosis, as well as eating carbohydrates that are low on the glycemic index to avoid insulin insensitivity. I am about 100kg and have 175 grams of protein per day, most coming from animal sources low in saturated fat. I make sure to have alot of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, as well as essential fatty acids and DHA/EPA (in fish oil).

That was very fun to play with! I cut military spending by 40%, dropped Iraq and Afghanistan spending by 50%, upped administration of justice by 20%, and kept military pensions the same. Everything else was thrown out. The total spending of that government would be 658 billion dollars per year.

I looked at two studies, and both said "bodyweight." I have a feeling that if they used training athletes in the study, they were fairly lean.

The reason why we can't compare a baby's nutritional needs to a full grown adult human's is because they have enormously different growing processes and hormonal profiles in place. I know the information regarding protein intake for weight training individuals, if anyone here is interested. Peter Lemon, Tempolsky, et al. did a study on healthy adult men undergoing weight training. Muscle biopsies were performed, and it was determined that 0.77-0.82 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight was needed to maintain a nitrogen balance. The goal of someone trying to gain muscle is nitrogen retention, so more is needed to gain muscle. Tarnopolsky et al. 1992 did a study in healthy weight training men that determined that a ceiling is reached at 2.6g/kg (protein/bodyweight) for muscle growth; 1.8-2.0g/kg being the most effective.

It rested on arguments for survival, not for thriving. Paleolithic man ate meat, fruits, and vegetables as his sources of food, while most of our evolutionary adaptions related to diet were underwent. Those who did not die of accidents and wound related infections lived on average to nearly 70, at a time before medicine.

Jingles: Go to aynrand100.org, and there is a lecture about an introduction to Objectivism by Ayn Rand herself in audio format. There is also writing on her philosophy on the site.

I definitely agree, and wholeheartedly recommend his biography to you if you haven't already read it!

Mr Croft, As an "Objectivist," do you agree that ideas are the primary mover of society? If you are looking for political change, you have to realize it will first come from a cultural change--which is a battle that will take place between intellectuals in universities and the philosophy departments.

I bought a digital camera but it turned out to be garbage, so I only have pictures others have taken for me: June Graduation Snow! (This January) Costume Dress-Up At Work (haha)

The main issue is that they do not see the distinction between causality and force on the life of man. What they want is freedom from reality. Freedom from the fact that man must work, think, and act to survive--based on his nature and the nature of the universe he lives in.

Property must be created first before the government should recognise legal rights to it. If a company constructs a canal or passageway then their legal rights to the creation must be recognised. If a group of men build a fish farm in some ocean water on the Pacific coast, then the area surrounding it should be legally claimed as theirs. Driving a boat up or down a river does not qualify as an improvement in any way. There are cases where the answer is a bit unclear to me, like building a dam accross the Mississippi for hydroelectric power generation, yet blocking the passage of thousands of ships. I'd think property owners would want to try and ensure some type of easement when they purchase their property. Unfortunately the easements do not exist because of collectivization of waterways, so I think in a transition between the welfare state and capitalism, easements would have to be added to the property rights of the owners on the waterway.

Laissez-faire is impractical if the goal is to distribute unearned wealth to the undeserved.

When I think of NZ, I tend to think: Free trade, All Blacks, Maoris, towns modelled after British ones (same thing where I live), and great big green hills and mountains that are mostly grassed. When I saw some of the mountains I thought, if I ever do get married, I'd want to be helicoptered out to the top of one with the bride and perform the ceremony there. By the way ScottKursk, I play either number 6, 7, or 8 on the rugby field usually. Edit, Just to mention rugby is very big in my area, possibly because of the British influence here. My high school had a rugby team but no football team, for example.

Ayn Rand rejected the a priori. The reviewer is a liar.

I think the permanency of the tattoo (short of laser removal) might attest to the individual's commitment toward what the image contains.

I haven't put much thought into this yet (I would if I was more serious about getting a tattoo). The best I can do is to compare it to wearing a necklace charm or some type of momento that symbolizes importance to the owner.

I have a significant extended family composed of Sikh's and have never heard of that. I've only seen the exact opposite, frequently. My province has the rules that force people to pay union dues if they don't want to be in the union. Thus, those who would not have joined the union in normal situations tend to join anyway.

A dollar sign. I put a tiny bit of thought into getting a dollar sign tattooed on one side of the upper back muscles (lower trapezius area). It's not really a priority though.

By "not readily available," do you mean "available at the click of a mouse from the Ayn Rand Bookstore"? What reason would you have to cheat them?

Using the correct philosophy and knowledge of the facts.

In the early grades, I would read Goosebumps, Boxcar Children (an orphaned family of children who lived alone in a Boxcar, and solved mysteries while at it!), and The Hardy Boys. I just gave away about 50 of these books, and I saw the thrift store selling them for 25 cents a peice. I assume they'll be easy to find at a book exchange.

Did you protest the scheduling of hormone related supplements earlier this year in the US? The laws are much more strict than anything in Europe, because the scheduling can put those who possess these substances in jail for years.

Just my preliminary thoughts on this: Trying to die this example down to reality, it seems highly unlikely one word would be made as the descriptor, but an adjective in front of the noun. Take the examples of "scheduled substances" or "illegal drugs." I'm sure it's quite possible to combine the two into one word referrent, but that won't change that the word will indicate both a modifier and the concept.