prosez

I never alluded to a lack of technology in food production. My point was that technology is not entirely helping the production of healthy food items. More to the point, technology is not being applied properly to the production of food items, which would help explain the high obesity rates. Also, that the ingestion of GMO's is questionable. I lack sufficient evidence to support an assault on GMO's, but changing DNA structures and chemical compositions has proven to create toxins and allergens in organic foods that were not originally there.

Although food is now produced more efficiently, it is not necessarily better for you in terms of nutrition. Costs have gone down in developing food items, but so has the nutritional value. Many health issues stem from poor dietary choices. For example, eating foods that are made with white; enriched, refined and bleached flour/sugar is poor practice. In the refining process, many vital minerals and nutrients have been leached out of these once whole foods. These food items (and others like refined oils) are more difficult for our bodies to metabolize. Furthermore, although technological advances have helped make food items cheaper and more available, the technology in “developing,” not growing these food items is questionable. Case in point, genetically modified/engineered foods and synthetic growth hormones (rBST.) Its not that Americans are eating to much, it’s what they are eating too much of. Take for instance hydrogenated oil, which contains toxic trans fatty acids. 80 percent of all the vegetable oils sold in the United States comes from soybeans, 3/4th of which is hydrogenated. The hydrogenation process induces oxidation and free radical formation, which is the cause of many degenerate diseases such as atherosclerosis. The oxidized lipids found in the refined oils are stripped of natural antioxidants, without which, we are unable to fight free radical formation. Much of our “modern diet” consists of these unhealthy refined oils, and less of the food rich with antioxidants (vegetables.) I am surprised to see the lack of Objectivist nutritionists. There are several references in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead which advocate a fit/healthy body, why isn’t their more activity in this area of personal development? Would being an obese Objectivist be a contradiction in terms? Browsing these forums and others, as well as reviewing the Objectivist Conferences, I have been unable to find any literature published on the topic.

My CD player must play slower

Actually, its more like 4 hours (audilbe.com.)

Back to the subject at hand: No Logo. I purchased this book at a used book store for .50 cents. It caught my eye because I am a designer, and always looking for new methods of branding and marketing. Although I haven't read it yet, thumbing through it, it seems that Naomi Klein takes the stand for the consumer. That is that big corporations are bad, and the consumer/worker is being exploited. From her introduction, "This is the village where Bill Gates lives, amassing a fortune of $55 billion while a third of his workers are classified as temporary workers, and where competitors are either incorporated into the Microsoft monolith or made obsolete by the latest feat in software bundling" (17). This book might earn its place on the shelf, alongside, "When corporations rule the world." Meaning, I probably wont be able to finish reading it. There is a considerable amount of information pertaining to corporate branding techniques and successful marketing campaigns. That information, in and of itself is interesting to read. I wouldn’t purchase this book for anymore than what I paid, .50 cents!

Thank you for the answer. What are your reasons for not approving such an approach?

Couldn’t spanking a child be considered as exerting physical force upon that child? Since it has been established that a child has all the rights as an adult, why should they be excused from the non-initiation of force?

I have no interest in posting at that forum, however, since you cross posted here, I will follow up here. If there's a problem with this, an admin can delete my post. "Genuinely religious people are mentally passive, expecting God to provide the greater part of the thinking; hoping somehow to be rescued from their default by divine assistance." Pasted from http://tinyurl.com/6l3cg - you will have to cut and copy the link in a new browser. You would have to define "genuinely religious," but one person that contradicts your statement, and instantly comes to my mind is Jack Welch. Throughout his entire book, Jack Welch: Straight from the Gut (despite its title, very few of his decisions were made "from the gut",) Mr. Welch discusses his faith and support there in. It is outlandish to say that he is "mentally passive," or "expecting God to provide the greater part of the thinking." Grouping all religious people, as such, is too broad a statement. A noteworthy section in his book, Mr. Welch answers a question of "How can you be a good Catholic and a businessman at the same time?" "I answered emphatically, "I am." The simple answer is: By maintaining integrity. Establishing it and never wavering from it supported everything I did through good and bad times. People may not have agreed with me on every issue-and I may not have been right all the time-but they always knew they were getting it straight and honest. It helped to build better relationships with customers, suppliers, analysts, competitors and governments. It set the tone in the organization. I never had two agendas. There was only one way-the straight way." It is clear religion played a key role in his life, and business decisions. However, can we conclude that he has a passive mind, or expected God to provide his solutions? Not after his total success at GE. "In my own personal life I have seen examples time and again of failures by religious business managers." Pasted from http://tinyurl.com/6l3cg - you will have to cut and copy the link in a new browser. Likewise, there are many that were successful, John D. Rockefeller comes to mind. Your statement implies all religious people, when it should, in fact, imply some. For example, the Jehovah Witness, are not "mentally passive, expecting God to provide the greater part of the thinking; hoping somehow to be rescued from their default by divine assistance." What I gathered from the Jehovah Witnesses, was that they hold that God is not going to rescue them, and that they must use their perceptive abilities to make decisions, not be "mentally passive". Your argument is over generalized, and flawed, in the respect that you group all religionists together, under one umbrella. When disusing religion, it is important to distinguish between what sects you are focusing on. Writing off all religious followers, as the same, because they believe in God, is wrong. Collectively their beliefs point to one supreme being, negating the Law of Identity, but, this does not mean, inclusively, their way of life is completely and utterly flawed, and as you put it believe that "reasoning is evil."

Two apparently contrasted viewpoints. One review says "It's all about self-determination" Pasted from http://tinyurl.com/66oou The other that "one's best is inborn" Pasted from http://tinyurl.com/63rk2 Well, Pixar always comes through with great animation. I haven't seen it either, but will be sure to check it out. For the record, Objectivism has been in my spell check (with the big O.)

"Ever wonder what a collaboration between Tex Avery and Ayn Rand might have uncorked? Wonder no more. "The Incredibles," the latest Pixar production from Disney and "Iron Giant" director Brad Bird, is a fun-filled foray into animated action, fantasy and adventure. And objectivism. And tort reform." http://tinyurl.com/66oou Looks like fun.

Correct. If you want to see major strength gains, from your core exercises, (dead lifts, squats and bench) periodization and speed are two concepts that must be utilized. For speed, use chains and bands to accommodate resistance, and you will build explosive strength and acceleration. If your goals for lifting are to get bigger and stronger, there is no other choice: West Side Barbell. You can waste your time with the HIT, or HST, or whatever else is popular, but the proof is in the program. Since my last post, October 28th, I've upped my bench from 305lb to 315lb. I have yet to seen anyone here personally prove their training method. In the weightlifting field, there is an abundance of over educated, under experienced people. If you are truly dedicated, and motivated, try http://www.elitefts.com/ and read some of the articles. Then, instead of posting new reports, post your increasing numbers.

I have only been training consistently (not missing a workout) for 3.5 years. I was on and off before that time period, but did'nt make much gains. Never cared for deserts, candies and such, and never acquired the taste for Scotch, or any other liquor. I'll have a beer every now and then, but I stick to my diet. From 6 years of working out, inconsistently, that’s decent gains. 210 to 280 is a nice progression, was most of it muscle? I have seen body weight increases of 10 lbs a year and 1-1.5" a year in bicep size. I stay with a consistent 15% body fat. I also suffered from a weak bench. I was stuck at 245 lb for a year, not budging much from there. Not until I switched my routine to West Side. All my workouts are centralized on the core exercises: dead lift, bench and squat. I've never touched the smith machine for squats, in fact, I only use it for hanging my shirt on. All my routines were built around free weights, that is barbell and dumbbells. Dips, pull-ups and push-ups we work in every now and again, however, just as a stabilizer exercise. Last time I did dips, I was weighted with about the same, about 32 kilo's, for 8-10 reps. My calves have always been weak and small. I am slowly building them up to be consistent with my biceps. The West Side routine is for dedicated and extreme trainers. I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, but they are the few that stand out from the rest. A lot of time and effort goes into the system, as you have to keep track of your weights, speed, time, band use, etc… As far as distilleries, we have many, for beer. Mostly privately owned, and served. I don’t know about Scotch though.

Let me clarify what I meant by the progressive-resistance workout. The progressive-resistance routine holds that workloads must be greater than those normally encountered for muscle strength to increase. <Zatsiorsky, V.M., Intensity of Strength Training Facts and Theory: Russian and Eastern European Approach. (1992). National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal. Vol. 14 (5). (pp. 46-57).> Progressive-resistance doesn’t account for speed. To increase your strength, you also need to increase your speed in lifting "The development of strength is key to power development, which is immensely important to a thrower (32). Explosive-strength (i.e. power) is the ability to produce maximal force in a minimal amount of time. Power (explosiveness) is a combination of speed and strength, where the athlete overcomes a resistance in the shortest time possible. The formula is the following: Equation 1: Power=Force x Distance/Time, or P=F x d/t. " Pasted from <http://www.elitefts.com/documents/strength_considerations_for_throwers.htm> As such, progressive-resistance is flawed in that it doesn’t utilize any speed routines. Which is why I stated that this system is only of interest to those that want to increase their strength. Any routine you encounter, to increase your strength, has the dangers of injury. You haven't posted your numbers, so I cant say what your lifting, or what your weight/height is (I am at 185 lbs (84 kilograms) at 5' 10" (~1.80 meters),) but what type of gains have you made on the Mentzer system? How long have you been training? What are your goals? That’s too bad. Nothing like a physical demonstration to prove a point.

Don't discredit the use of Steroids. That's what quickens their recuperative abilities. I agree with the overtraining, which is what I was doing on the progressive-resistance routine. I wasn't discrediting Mentzers system, but the progressive-resistance workout. I told you why I recommended the system. Look at my gains. I was struggling with a 275 lb bench for months. Unable to break a 300 squat, the only weight that was going up was my dead lift. The again, I was over training and could attribute some of my gains on the West Side system to adequate rest. However, increases in 25lbs are not entirely due to adequate recuperation. The system utilizes a few different approaches, I will explain two of them: Reactive Method: "This is primarily the ability to display intense motive force resulting from a rapid switch from yielding to overcoming the instant a maximal dynamic load occurs." Pasted from <http://www.elitefts.com/documents/training-methods.htm> We achieve this concept by using Jump-Stretch bands, " to increase the rate of fall, or eccentric speed, greater kinetic energy is developed, producing even greater muscular force development at the instant of switching from eccentric to concentric work, plus a shorter amortization transition." and chains (which I haven't got into, because the gym doesn’t allow them.) This approach alone will increase "explosive strength," which is needed to get the bar off your chest, and get your ass off the floor. Static-overcome-by-dynamic: "Static means iso-metric, and dynamic can refer to concentric, eccentric..." which is referred to reversal strength. In this concept we use the box squat ("By sitting back, not down, on a box of any height, the squatting muscles are stretched maximally. Relaxing the hip flexors, glutes, and oblique's for 1/2 to 11/2 seconds and flexing off the box dynamically in a box squat will also increase your pulls of f the floor") and floor press ("lower the bar until the elbows are in contact with the floor. Relax the triceps and other pressing muscles, then flex dynamically and press upward.") This method also increases your "explosive" and absolute strength. If your in the NY area, I would welcome you to come down to Long Island. My training partner and I would be happy to go over the routine with you. You will see quick and steady gains. That is, if you are interested in gaining strength. Another site you may want to search through is: http://www.elitefts.com

If your truly interested in lifting, and your goals are strength and mass, I would recommend dropping Mentzers routine and start studying West Side Barbell http://www.westside-barbell.com as represented by Louie Simmons: "It is [his] knowledge and expertise that has lead to the production of twenty-five (25) World and National champions, twenty-seven (27) lifters who have totaled over 2000 lbs and a world record in the 400m dash by Butch Reynolds. Also, Louie’s methods of training have resulted in thirty-three (33) 550 lb benchers, eighteen (18) 600 lb benchers, and five (5) 700 lb benchers. Also to his credit are twenty-eight (28) 800 lb plus squatters, ten (10) 900 lb plus squatters, and three (3) 1000 lb plus squatters." I've just recently overhauled my routine and started the West Side Barbell workout, which, over the span of a couple of months, increased my squat from 275 lbs to 315 lbs, and my bench press from ~275 to 305 (all one rep max.) I have also seen a increase in my dead lift, however, my form is different than that when I was on the progressive-resistance routine, so no honest comparison can be made. Louie Simmons has several articles on his website describing the system, of which, has been proved by the sheer amount of weight that is moved by its followers. Spending 15-20 hours in the gym a week, most of the members are "body builders," that is, they are only concerned with their appearance not their strength. Working out to mimic the body builders you see in magazines/TV is useless, unless you are a professional who is going to use Steroids and overhaul your diet. Any professional body builder will tell you that diet is key, that is calories, protein, carbs, fat, etc.. intake are strictly measured and regulated. Many of these body builders do not look as chiseled as they do in photos, and the day of competitions, all year round, because in the off season they are eating as much as possible to gain as much weight as possible. Then during season they start restricting their diet and lowering their body fat percentage. Weeks (sometimes months) before photo shoots and competitions, body builders will fast, giving them 3-5% body fat. If you go to the gym consistently, any workout will give you gains, even if your form is wrong, however, why not follow a system that is proved, in practice and works for a variety of individuals, despite their genetics. I am not disputing Mentzers system, as I have never followed it, but I don’t know of any professional weight lifter that has.