rackham

Did you cut out the bars entirely, or did you replace them with something else? If you just cut them out entirely, you lost weight because you're eating fewer calories, not because the bars are "bad".

Youngest Mr. America ever...

Don't laugh, it does exist. It's just not as useful as people think.

I agree, and I would just add that you should start out with at least 20x your bodyweight (if your metabolism is anything like mine was at that age), about 2800 calories. I say this only because people often think they're eating more than they really are, so keeping track of your calories for a while will ensure that you're not kidding yourself. Use that as a baseline and adjust as needed.

There was a question about the "fat burning" zone a few days ago, which went unanswered. The "fat burning zone" is generally considered the exercise intensity (measured by heart rate) at which the greatest percentage of calories burned comes from fat oxidation. HOWEVER, at greater intensity, you will be burning more calories total. Also, burning glycogen during exercise means that you're more likely to burn fat as fuel later in the day. So, even if the *percentage* of calories burned from fat during exercise is lower at higher intensity, the overall amount of fat burned throughout the day will be higher. The moral of the story is that people seeking to lose fat should find a form of high-intensity exercise that burns lots of calories (e.g. interval training), rather than spend hours on the treadmill.

Let's not make it a habit.

The reason why people find negatives so effective is that optimal strength gains are achieved with optimal time under tension (TOT). Most people lift way too quickly and therefore don't get adequate TOT. Negatives increase TOT and therefore increase strength gains.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=behind+the+neck+press+rotator+cuff&meta=group%3Dmisc.fitness.weights

Thanks... and let me know if the pudding mix works out for you.

Yeah, but at that price, you'd be better off getting a Myoplex shake. At $3 for 300 calories and 42g of protein, it's a better deal and just as healthy. But like I said, if you like the taste, by all means snack away!

I can support myself but I can't afford a $2000 ring. Which is precisely why I asked the question that you still haven't answered. wideskies:

Yeah, just try a regular serving (quarter packet) of the pudding mix, stirred in with 1/3 cup of the powder in water. It actually tastes better (to me) than any other protein supplement I've had. Hey, did the 11-pounders come in tubs or bags?

$1.39 for 9g of soy protein? Not worth it unless you're buying them for the taste.

I got the supplementdirect protein a couple days ago, and I must say, it tastes pretty damn good mixed with sugarless, fat-free jello pudding mix!

My dad definitely couldn't afford a diamond ring when he proposed, and my parents had their wedding bands made through a family jewler at an *extremely* discounted price... and they are the happiest couple I've ever met.

Don't you get hot inside that suit?

It's a simple idea, but it's wrong. If she didn't want to answer the question at all, I'd A-C-C-E-P-T that. But that's not what she's doing. She's backpedaling, accusing me of reading between the lines when her statements are there in plain writing for anybody to see. It's not "badgering" if I ask her to keep her story straight. Got it, Mr. Night in Shining Armor?

Just because somebody disagrees doesn't mean they're bitching, moaning, or whining. It just means they disagree. Calling it "drama" is a cheap way to avoid answering difficult questions.

Reading between the lines? Please. You have clearly said that the man should be financially stable before he proposes (which I agree with, btw). You've also said that if he can't afford a "nice" ring, then he's not financially stable enough. I'm just asking you how nice the ring has to be to meet your criteria -- i.e., how much rock should he be able to afford? It's a simple question, and the fact that you can't stand up for your own statements is YOUR problem, not mine.

Oh, I see, you didn't actually mean what you said? So the size of the ring *doesn't* matter, then (even though you said it "REALLY" does)? Congratulations on completely avoiding the question. You said that the size/quality/whatever of the engagement ring is a measure of the man's financial stability. Therefore, the PRICE of the ring obviously matters to you! So I ask you again... just how "nice" does this ring have to be to prove that he's financially stable?

Actually, I believe your exact words were, "whether you admit it or not, size REALLY does matter!!!" Nice try, though. This statement is meaningless because you didn't answer my question about how expensive the ring has to be.

So just how much money does a man have to spend on a ring to qualify as "financially stable"? How do you define "financially stable"? There are plenty of guys who go into debt to buy their girlfriends HUGE rings, and they are most certainly NOT financially stable. There are other men who are rich out the ass but are too frugal to buy a plastic spider ring.

I was being sarcastic. *whoooooosh!* So what you're saying is, somebody wanting to spend the rest of his life with you isn't special unless it's accompanied by an expensive trinket, the bigger the better.

Obviously if it's not huge and expensive it means he doesn't love you. Duh! I mean, you spend all that time together, telling each other how much you're in love, and then he refuses to empty his bank account on a ring?!? C'mon people! What a loser!!!

I didn't send you a PM! You'll never get the right answer!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!