Printable View
Maybe. Though there should be plenty of cells to go around. I guess if they're only attacking 'sick' cells that would add up. But that is sorta making my point too. The cells are 'sick' cause they've got too much toxic shit in them, like kebab meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Go lick the bottom of one of Ong's test tubes and tell me how your body responds to made up nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Maybe because you're being exposed to the same toxins that they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The first one says the cold isn't necessarily caused by germs, but their top 3 pieces of advice to avoid catching/spreading the illness are to wash your hands and oft-touched surfaces, cover your mouth and nose when you are coughing and sneezing, and to back away from anyone while they're coughing and sneezing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That doesn't make sense to me unless germs are a central cause.
It's talking about unnamed toxins as the cuplrit, without giving any references to those claims. There's a link at the end of that paragraph, here's what it has to say on the specific toxins:
"bisphenol-A (BPA), used in hard plastics, food-can linings, and paper receipts; two phthalates used as plasticizers in vinyl products; DDE, the breakdown product of the banned insecticide DDT; organophosphate pesticides, including one called chlorpyrifos used on grain, fruit, and other crops; and brominated flame retardants known as PBDEs that were extensively used in furniture foams until they were banned in Europe and the United States."
Note: none of those are viruses or bacteria, none of them are directly linked to any health problems, but there are studies that show a correlation between these things.
I think we can say, "The cause is germs, but if your immune system is healthy, then the germs have less of a chance." and almost noone is going to argue with that.
My real problem is at the bottom where they recommend a homeopathic something.
Homeopathy is total BS, based on the notion that water molecules have selective memory. Tons of science has been done to debunk homeopathic methods, so let's just thrown this out as a credible source.
The second link has no references listed, and the Dr. making these claims is selling his supplements on the same page.
Conflict of interest.
He'd come back with a medical report stating specific, named toxins which affected him, not some single buzz-word that plays off of people's emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Saying "The toxins in your body" as though that holds any well-defined meaning is not leading anyone to any evidence-based conclusions.
Sure it could. One could have cells in dishes with different toxins in them that might be found in human tissue and see which get targeted by cold viruses. That would not be conclusive, but it would be a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That's generic good advice for anyone to protect you from contagions. You also shouldn't eat dirt, or stick poo up your nose. You should just assume anyone sneezing on you is a bad thing a priori whether they have a cold or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think the idea is that the viruses go after weak cells and these are often weakened by toxins. This is the 'terrain' theory they refer to. The germs are always there but they only multiply in the proper environment.
Naming 200+ types of virus as possible culprits is not much stronger than naming some random toxins imo. Also, there are plenty of microorganisms that are beneficial, and these could easily be some of them. Just because something makes you feel like shit doesn't mean it isn't good for you. Ever thrown up? That's a bad feeling but the process is definitely cleansing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I believe something like that. It's possible though that these kinds of germs are indigenous and they are used if only incidentally by the body when it needs a detox. It's more of a symbiotic relationship than it is an 'attack' of a virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Lots of people make both credible and incredible arguments, often in the same essay. The theory should be evaluated independently of what you think of the other ideas of the person making it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's not like he's selling alligator scales mixed with sheep testicles though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The guy is basically saying 'bad nutrition leads to illness. If you look after your body nutritionally you'll be less likely to get sick. Instead of a Big Mac, eat this ground up organic stuff I'm selling'. Assuming the ingredients are legit, that's hardly a scam job.
Also, see above about not judging an argument by its author.
I smoke all day. I fill myself with toxins on a regular basis. Maybe the cold virus doesn't like the fuck ton of toxins that are in tobacco?
Or maybe the weed heals me. Yeah, that.
Yeah maybe all the cells lining your respiratory tract are coated in so much tar the virus can't break through.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I still wouldn't recommend smoking though.
Have you ever heard of 'smoker's face'? That's the shit in cigarettes getting expelled through the skin.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ever heard of Ronald's Arsehole? It's what you get after eating too many Big Macs.
I wouldn't recommend eating Big Macs.
It's no joke.
Attachment 1082
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that fucker is just ugly.
I've been smoking for 20 years and I don't have a face like a grinning potato.
Give it time. She's only 50.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Though tbf, smoking is supposed to be worse for women than for men.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ous-women.html
So you might not look like that until your 60.
Whatever, it's the future, I'll just have a head transplant.
It certainly "feels right" that inhaling radioactive materials will lead to cancer, but despite how obvious it seems, it has yet to be conclusively shown to be the case.
Unless you have some credible study to point to, then no amount of circumstantial evidence will ever amount to a fact.
That pic is just lol. What would she look like if not a smoker? Oh yeah, there's no control group, so they could have just as easily picked someone the same age, smoked for just as long, but whom is a model.
I have never seen any scientific paper which shows a causal link between smoking and ill-health.
I have never seen any credible, direct link between any known cause and any cancer.
Attachment 1083Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Not sure what counts as credible in your eyes. Do you want evidence that as soon as you finish your first cigarette ever you have cancer?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What's your experimental model to provide this evidence? You separate two groups of identical twins at birth, give one a twenty-a-day habit and keep the others away from cigarettes? Then see which group gets lung cancer more often?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The evidence that exists is certainly credible; sometimes direct evidence just isn't obtainable.
On the balance of probabilities, just with the cirumstantial evidence, I'd guess it's about 99% probable that smoking is bad for you. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damn overwhelming when taken in sum.
I want the same standard that is applied to other illnesses' causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If it can be shown that finishing a cigarette causes cancer, then yes, absolutely, I want that conclusively shown.
Also, I want to know if it's something specific about the cigarette. Is it the nicotine? Is it the Carbon Dioxide? Is it the sharp corners of the ash suspended in the fluid abrading your innerds?
Whatever it is, I want to know the pathology of it.
IDK the medical standards and practices, but anything akin to what they do to draw conclusions about other pathological illnesses seems appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That wouldn't prove much of anything unless the rates were 0% and 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You realize that, right?
If you're going to say that smoking causes cancer, then any example of a smoker without cancer is proof your hypothesis is incorrect.
All I've heard breaks down like, "Look! There's a correlation!.. but it's not a direct causal link, and there are countless other factors which we didn't / couldn't control, some of which are hypothesized to contribute to cancer."
It's not even compelling indirect evidence, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There are other explanations, which are scientifically viable.
I'm not arguing from an emotional POV. Emotionally, it seems obvious that lighting something on fire and inhaling the fumes is surely bad for your health. I'm saying that scientifically, this has not been shown. Many brilliant scientists have been searching for the causes of cancer for many decades. If there was any direct link to cancer, not just via smoking, it would be one of the biggest deals in modern medicine.
Sure, so long as you ignore all the other hypothesized factors which cause cancer, you can point at every smoker with cancer and say, "See? I told you!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, that's not what I do. I note the correlations between smoking and all kinds of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as cancer and life expectancy. Then I conclude it's highly probable smoking is bad for you. I don't say, "dozens of correlations with bad things and none with good things doesn't meet the scientific standard of the experimental paradigm, therefore I'm gonna pretend it isn't extremely suggestive."Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They don't even know what causes the common cold! Physiology is complicated; it's not like bouncing particles off each other where you can control every single extraneous variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well the standard is a double blind randomized trial. It's just rather unethical to do that with smoking because it's extremely likely that you're condemning your experimental group to poorer overall health than the control group. Not to mention it's a bit impractical to run a controlled study over decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Of course it would, it would prove it's a contriibuting factor. If the rates were 2% and 5%, and the likelihood of such a difference occurring by chance were small enough, then that would suggest that yes it 'causes' cancer ; not the sole cause but a contributing cause. It's unlikely cancer is caused by a single variable, like smallpox or cholera.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If there were a single correlation only between smoking and (say) leukemia, then it could be dismissed. The fact that there's a broad range of strong correlations between smoking, cardiovascular and/or respiratory disease, various cancers, illness in general, and lowered life expectancy, strongly implies it is overall bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I don't see how that's an emotional argument, it seems pretty rational to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'll give you that the link is not 100% certain that smoking contributes to lung cancer (if we're talking about lung cancer) or cancer in general (if we're talking more broadly) or the whole range of other illnesses it correlates with; I would dispute that it would likely be much lower than that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They're pretty certain about mesothelioma, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
(TY spellcheck, damn)
I'm not suggesting human testing.
any of the other clickable links here will sufficeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...revention/risk
They fuckin' hate tobacco, there, FYI.
Got nothing to say about smoking in general, or smoking weed, which is really where this all started.
SMHQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There's nothing evidence-based in that statement at all.
No wonder the psychological fields have problems with repeatability studies.
Smoking doesn't cause cancer it increases your risk of cancer. They are different things.
Smoking has tonnes of shitty negative health implications and smoking is retarded but the it's also the incredibly villified and the negative effects are massively over estimated. For example second hand smoke is essentially a complete myth. If you worked in a pub full of smoke every day all your life the effects of second hand smoke are incredibly minor yet people think they are going to get cancer when they see someone smoking on the other side of the street.
Pretty much. I don't know why anyone would try to argue otherwise unless they're a shill for Big Tobacco like Mojo obviously is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I agree the effects of 2ndhand smoked are totally exaggerated. It is a bit funny how people act like a single molecule of 2ndhand smoke is enough to kill them and their three nearest relatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I also don't have direct evidence that if I call my girlfriend 'fatty fatty fat fat', she'll get pissed off. But common sense tells me she would, and if you want to call that an argument based on irrational emotions because it hasn't been tested empirically, then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Don't get all precious on me please.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If we used a 5-sigma rule like physics we'd have a lot less problems. We'd also have barely any studies published and would have missed out on a lot of findings.
The fact physicists generally don't face replicability problems says more about the phemonena you're testing being experimentally straightforward than anything else imho. Large, robust effects tend to replicate. Small, sensitive ones tend to be slippery.
My entire point is that it seems obvious that smoking is bad, but there isn't solid evidence of smoking causing cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How is that even different from what Savy said?
I dropped a link that perfectly vilifies Tobacco and I'm a shill?
How?
This is perfectly easy to test, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You could just explain the context of this conversation, then ask her.
Stay on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I made an evidence-less statement and you called it rational.
This has nothing to do with statistically robust findings. This has to do with recognizing what is data, with differentiating what "seems" right between what "can be shown."
How is it different from what I said originally? In fact, no-one said smoking was the SOLE cause of any illness, so why did you even start this argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It was a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm using rational as a synonym for 'common-sense' , not in whatever way you're trying to define it as necessarily involving empirical proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
rational
ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: rational
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, well reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, coherent, intelligent, wise, judicious, sagacious, astute, shrewd, perceptive, enlightened, clear-eyed, clear-sighted, commonsensical, common-sense, well advised, well grounded, sound, sober, prudent, circumspect, politic; More
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You took a shot at my field, and I explained why it was a cheap shot, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The past couple of years I've had a letter through saying I'm eligible for a free flu vaccine. I phoned the doctors the first time I got it through to ask why I'd got one and whether it was a mistake. They told me it was because I have asthma, no I don't, says on our records you do, ok but I really don't, well if you're like to book an appointment for us to do some tests, lol yeah I'll piss about at the doctors for no reason no thanks.
So as a result I still get them through every year. Can't decide whether I should take advantage of going to get it or not. Getting the flu is a pain, what are the side effects of the vaccines usually like?
Depends on the type of vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Most popular flu vaccines have no symptoms after inoculation.
If the vaccine involves swabbing something up your nose, you'll experience mild flu symptoms for a bit.
(So I'm told. I've never had one of these.)
Just ask the doctors and/or nurses administering the vaccines, they'll know which kind they are using.
The side effects will be along the lines of a weaker immune system. I'd rather have flu once a decade or whatever.
What? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/misconceptions.htm
Flu vaccines are recommended specifically for people with weak immune systems.
Autism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
ALREADY GOT THAT CLEARLYY LOLOLOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why would that possibly be the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Same reason I can't run a mile for shit, but lots of people can do it without breaking a sweat. Training.
If their immune system is already weak, well I guess their options are limited. Mine isn't weak, and it might have something to do with the fact that I never take medication for ailments like flu and colds. It's certainly not my healthy lifestyle, since I smoke a ton and eat like shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
What a load of fucking tosh...
Sure it's serious for old folk, or kids, or Freddie Mercury. And sure it's serious if it's a nasty strain, like Spanish flu or swine flu or Rhesus monkey flu, but your bog standard everyong-gets-it flu is not going to do you any harm, not unless you're super unlucky. I don't know anyone in good health who has had long-term problems thanks to flu. I'd be surprised if any of you guys do too.Quote:
Is it better to get the flu than the flu vaccine?
No. Flu can be a serious disease, particularly among young children, older adults, and people with certain chronic health conditions, such as asthma, heart disease or diabetes. Any flu infection can carry a risk of serious complications, hospitalization or death, even among otherwise healthy children and adults. Therefore, getting vaccinated is a safer choice than risking illness to obtain immune protection.
If I got swine flu, I'd want to ride that out too. I might take my doctor's advice though if he insisted I take medication.
Getting vaccinated in no way weakens your immune system or makes it less likely to be able to fight other illnesses. I have no idea why you assume this would be the case. It just does it in a controlled way that makes you not get as ill as you would if you actually caught the illness in the first place.
Also the reason people get vaccinated isn't usually because they have a weak immune system it's that flu is serious enough that the complications can be fatal for people who can't deal with the complications that can arrise. It very rarely has anything to do with a weak immune system.
A vaccine literally is like training your body to be better at dealing with disease.
Sounds like any side effects are pretty tame.
https://www.menshealth.com/health/a1...-side-effects/
Still waiting for them to create a common cold vaccine btw. Oh yea, I forgot - it doesn't exist. Mwahahahaha.
Modern vaccines don't even express any symptoms. They're not giving you a living, active virus injection. There are 2 forms of modern flu vaccines, different, but neither uses live viruses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
These are described in the first paragraph of the link I posted above.
This. I am in the pool of people recommended to get flu vaccines every year, not because of my own health, but because my job puts me in contact with thousands of people, some of whom have weak immune systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It's not about keeping me from getting sick, so much as it's to keep me from spreading the illness to someone whom might be at risk.
More like posting an APB with a mug shot, and training the SWAT team (white blood cells) to kill without hesitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
It's not making you generally better at fighting off disease, so much as making you particularly suited to fight off one very specific disease.
Can we talk about the washington haircut:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxfgU2LJhFM
Reporter on the left. Ignore the content. Do I think of this as a haircut for 8 year olds just because it was the haircut I had when I was 8 years old, or is it at least a bit as infantile as it looks to me.
Even people I respect. I mean wtf is this even:
https://psmag.com/.image/t_share/MTU...-newsnight.jpg
That has to be a ton of effort at this age. I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, but half of congress has the hair of an infant, with otherwise less than impeccable genetics. Why?
http://www.nebraska.gov/government/i...ortenberry.jpg
Is this getting you l8, m8?
I'm really fucking bored recently.
To the point where I'm thinking I should get a job. fml.
Boredom is a transitional state of mind where you're just in need of breaking up your routine to stimulate new paths of thought.
I bet if you went out into public for a while you'd see all kinds of human behavior to hate, and that could easily occupy a few hours a day.
Have you tried that?
I can't remember if you smoke weed or not. If you don't, do. If you do, smoke more.Quote:
I'm really fucking bored recently.
Done that before it's boring. Weed isn't the drug for me. I'd rather get pissed more. I've been drinking less recently maybe that's why I'm bored? But I'm also drinking now and I'm bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm surprisingly a really nice person in general and I don't really hate people or things. I should put more effort in socially, especially into keeping in contact with people. I tend to find that if I do an activity with the person I'm not too bad but if it's just a general friend I'm pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I hope you didn't take that part too seriously. I meant the first part about boredom being a sign that you need a break in your routine.
The rest is me joking a bit.
I booked a weekend to go visit my mate in wales next month so that's something I suppose.
More jobs are starting to pop up that are suitable too so I should start applying for those.
Wales in November. Take a good coat.
...and a canoe.
Where exactly do you think I'm from? It's like 2 hours away by car if the traffic is awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're a rare Man Utd fan from Manchester, aren't you?
I'm ten miles from the Welsh border, it gets windier and rainier with every mile west I head.
Wow.
Crazy times we are living in.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18...share=427892d1
Wow is right. That's insane!
Naughty naughty. So, do you need any more weapons?
Dan Negranu does Scotty Nguyen. Not racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob61l6fTtu4
Dan Negranu does Dexter. Racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hoOSDhSgtc
Learn a new skill. Music is a bottomless pit if you're into it. Or go fix something. There's a zero percent change there's nothing around you in need of carpeting, welding, sewing or plumbing. Cooking is a good one. Everyone eats. Clean something! I know for a fact you have dirty windows. Right now is the time to plant flowers. Always nice to have flowers in spring, so go plant some flowers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I just learned that there is such a thing as Iggy Azalea. Very hot
Are you calling me a fgt?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Music is boring to me. I can play guitar, clarinet but I have no real interest in getting better. I could learn some stuff on guitar for the sake of it but meh. I haven't really listened to anything new or exciting in too long. I have been cooking more. I don't own my house so doing all that other stuff is pointless. If something bothers me enough I literally do just fix/sort it out. My windows are dirty but I couldn't give a flying fuck.
Is this what old people do? Just pass time with no intention of being good just to put off death? If so I should get into cooking purely for the fact that it'll shorten my life.
Get a job so you become too busy to realise how pointless it all is.
Edit: I thought you were a primary school teacher?
I qualified to be a maths teacher last school year. I'm starting to apply for jobs now. Found one I liked, applied for it and then found out that they already had someone they wanted so I doubt anything will come from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
My best piece of advice that I offer to anyone whom will take it is the following:
Whenever you are making long-term plans, ensure those plans satisfy 2 criteria: Awesomeness and practicality.
What is awesome to you and practical for you will vary from person to person, so feel free to define those as best they fit your life.
To pin this to a specific example: Being a math teacher is clearly a practical goal for you, Savy. Is it an awesome one? I.e. will you feel like you're truly a lucky person to have the opportunity to get paid to do something you would love to do anyway? If not, then maybe this goal should be relegated to a short-term goal, while you keep searching for an awesome goal to push toward in the long-term.
The benefits of this mindset are too many to enumerate, IMO.
I hope this makes sense. It's made all the difference in my own life.
Yeah but everything sucks and is boring. That's the least sucky and boring thing I can think of doing currently that actually ends up in me not just being a doss about lazy ass. If I start doing it and I really don't like it I'll obviously look for something else.
That's great, but misses the point entirely.
It's not "if it sucks, then I'll look for something else."
It's, "if it's not awesome, then I'll look for something else."
"Not sucking" is too low a bar for someone as intelligent and capable as you are.
His point is that nothing currently seems awesome to him, so he's making the best choices he can under the circumstances. Lots of people have that problem. How many people do you know who think their job is 'awesome'? So, just saying 'find someting awesome' is a bit simplistic imho.
The wisest advice I think would be to keep your options and your mind open to trying things that you might not expect to be satisfying/fulfilling/happy-making until you try them. Also, understand that there's a lot of other people out there in a similar situation to you. It's difficult to deal with at times, but you have to keep looking.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My point is to keep those plans as short-term plans while he keeps looking for something awesome.
"Most people" are nowhere near as intelligent as Savy, have less to offer a potential employer, and lack the self-confidence to take their dreams seriously.
Savy has the potential to do whatever he wants and turn it into a career. He just needs to find something that is awesome for him and then not accept "no" for an answer. I'm not saying that's easy, but I don't think it's nearly as hard as people make it out to be.
Just think back to when you were a kid, having fun as a mode of life... how did you spend your time?
Probably start there for what you would enjoy spending the majority of your time on as an adult.
When was the last time you had a great day?
What did you do that day?
Is it practical to do that every day?
If left to your own devices, if money wasn't a concern... what would you do?
Does that have to be something you put off until you retire?
Many people make money doing all sorts of things which surprise me. There are demolitions experts whom get paid to blow things up. Pilots whom fly all over the world. Park Rangers whom get paid to wander around in the woods all day. Actors whom get paid to play pretend. Literally everything is a viable option to some people. The trick is to find that intersection of what is practical for you while still being awesome.
It's rare, but 100% achievable for an intelligent person.
Don't forget he can also be middleweight boxing champion of the world.
Meanwhile, Ong is working on ways to move to Canada.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/...-pot-1.4865944
I weigh 224lb I think I'd have to fight light heavyweight or the cut would be too much. Going to get back down to 210-198 range that's a healthier weight for me to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Five years and it'll be legal here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not sure if that's practical for Savy, but if it is, then it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Pros:Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Chicks dig fighters.
Lose your gut and get in shape.
Make really good money if you're good enough.
Cons:
Have to train hard whether you want to or not.
Have to eat right whether you want to or not.
Fair chance of getting brain damage.
I have literally 0 intention of ever getting into boxing. Unless for some reason I get an opportunity to earn shit tonnes of money for a fight even though I have no experience (like the whole youtube thing) then why would I? Getting punched in the head is stupid unless you're earning a lot of money for doing so.
When I was like 15 we used to do backyard boxing where we'd put boxing gloves on in my mates garden and basically just twat each other, that was fun. Maybe boxing is what I'm missing in life.
Whaaaaat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Attachment 1084
https://www.twitch.tv/sweet_anita/clips?range=7d
In case anyone still doesn't think that streaming is the future.
I had a grilled cheese sandwich with Feta on it with a bowl of chili for lunch.
Who the hell does that?
It was delicious, BTW.
Sandwitches are the best, but I'm not responsible enough to have 'em. This summer I managed to gain about 10lb in 2 months and I'm convinced it's because I packed myself sandwiches and a can of soda for lunch. It's back to coffee and avocados for me.
Also someone guessed me 10 years younger than I am, and my first thought was naturally: I could still legit fuck 21 year olds! Not that I'd necessarily want to, but it's nice to know that's still open. Gotta stay fresh!
Sandwiches can be healthy or unhealthy, depending on what's on them.
My goal when making a sandwich is to use at least 10 ingredients and to try not to fill up on the meat and cheese. Everything counts as an ingredient, even the bread, salt, and pepper. Meat, cheese, lettuce, onion, green pepper, carrot, avocado, pickles, mayo or other salad dressing, etc.... they all count. This helps keep the meat and cheese from being the biggest part of the sandwich, and makes it easy to have a different sandwich every day of the week.
Now that I think about it, it's more like a hand-held salad than a store-bought sandwich.
I cut soda entirely about 12 years ago, and don't miss a thing. I have maybe 3 sodas a year, now... and it's as a dessert after a meal, not as a beverage when I'm thirsty.
(I'm not remotely trying to come across as a health expert. Just talking. I have no judgement over what/how people eat.)
Weighed myself the other day and I'm at 205. It's a little chunky on a 6'2" frame, but not at all "fat" for a 42-year-old.
I'm blessed with a baby face, too. no gray hair or receding hairline, either. Lucky.
I already have a cute Hawaiian gal, whom is 11 years younger than I am, though.
Also... I have no desire to deal with a 21-year-old's melodrama again.
Jesus... am I a total douche in this post? As I reread it, I feel like it sounds kinda "Do it like me, and you'll be better."
That's not at all my meaning.
I don't usually drink soda, but sometimes I make excuses. I'm not super fat, I'm exactly 25bmi right now, which is right on the line to overweight... I feel pretty fat though.
I'm no nutritionist, but there's a ton of calories in the bread which doesn't even fill you up. Google says it's 70 calories per slice, so 2 sandwiches are 280 calories just for the bread. It's so easy to overeat on sandwiches.
I'm relatively thin at 6' and 172 lbs, but I have to be careful to maintain it. Processed carbs and starches like bread, pasta, etc., are the best way for me to put on weight. It's hard to know what to replace a sandwich with though. I should eat more salad but it just doesn't fill you up. I do eat lots of fruit and veg though at least.
The other day I read the uni newspaper put out by students and there was an article on nutrition that was so bad I'm not surprised so many people are fat. Their advice was to "Eat beans and cheese, pasta, chicken and rice, and jacket potatoes." Fucking srsly?
And they went on: don't worry about how most vegetables are "expensive" (wat ??? - a 1kg bag of carrots costs < £1), or "bland" (the e.g. of a bland veg they gave was kale - that stuff is vile but it is hardly bland), 'cause jacket potatoes give you 25% of your vitamin C. So I guess you're supposed to eat 4 of them a day then (and forget all the other vitamins and minerals 'cause that's the only veg or fruit they recommended people eat.)
It was like they had no idea about nutrition, did no research, hadn't ever tasted a vegetable before, never mind bought one, and just wrote whatever nonsense popped into their head. If this is what passes for knowledge about nutrition in their generation they are all fucked imo.
Bread is just a pretty shitty food. What sandwich can you not just basically turn into "salad" instead.
It also happens I have a project group that wanted to look at ways to improve people's cognitive skills. Two ideas I suggested were cardio and fruit/veg. They told me it would be impossible to get people their age to eat an extra serving of fruit/veg a day for four weeks. One of them must have read that article I mentioned because they said vegetables were 'too expensive, and it was cheaper to buy a pizza.' omfg.
Whole wheat bread has some value (fibre, vits, etc.), but it is fattening. It doesn't help when you buy a sandwich from the shop and it's 90% bread because that's the cheapest way to make them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
The problem is a lot of people (myself included) find bread pretty tasty.
Literally just remove the bread and chop the ingredients up in a container.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fruit really isn't all that good for you it's essentially just sugar. Veg however is awesome. The reason they think it's expensive is because they buy stupid shit and believe in all the organic grown by itself in a 3 acre field where lambs frolic freely so you get a lettuce for £5. Frozen veg is brilliant and cooking veg in a microwave is one of the better ways to do it.
I'm a big fan of just making currys, stews and the like, lots of meat and loads of veg. Much better than a salad or similar whilst at work and assuming your sauce isn't really calorific they aren't exactly high in calories.
Don't know how this idea took hold,but I've heard it before. Fruit is the next best thing for you after veg. An apple is 90 calories, so about the same as a slice of bread, an orange is 60 cals, and both are full of vitamins/minerals and fibre. They're not just flavoured sugar as some people seem to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
No, it's because they've never bought it themselves and just assume because it's healthy it must also be expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
With regards to eating another portion of fruit and veg and cardio to improve cognitive skills why do you think this would make any difference?
I think that one of the biggest improvements most people could make to their lives, nothing to do with cognitive skills, is increasing their flexibility in terms of stretching.
Btw you can 100% buy pizzas for less than veg. When I was at uni you could get £1 pepperoni pizzas from tesco. They were basically just bread but still.
With cardio it's thought to be mostly from improved circulation getting more blood to the cells in the brain. With fruit/veg it's more nutrients keeping brain cells healthy and functioning. Also have to remember if you're getting some cals from fruit/veg you're replacing other cals that used to come from less nutritious foods (or harmful, in the case of a soda, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
How is being more flexible a big improvement? Also, flexibility is mostly genetic, so stretching doesn't do much for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Not sure what kind of veg you were buying. If you buy exotic shit that has to come from India or S. America then yeah it can be expensive. I don't know where the fuck asparagus comes from for example,but it's stupid expensive, like £1.50/100g. But everyday fruit and veg. is as cheap as or cheaper than the cheapest pizza.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
These Tesco pizzas range from 40p/100g to £2/100g.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-G...ad/fresh-pizza
Per 100g:
carrots 8p
onions 8p
broccoli 15p
celery 25p
lettuce 5p
banana 8p
tomatoes 20p
apple 30p
orange 25p
A pizza is a meal is peoples point and looking at 100g prices is stupid. If you got home from work and had the choice between 1kg of carrots or 1 cheap frozen pizza you're not taking the carrots. I agree with you veg is cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The cardio and fruit/veg thing sounds like mostly nonsense that would have essentially insignificant results on someones cognitive ability. Though it's the type of nonsense that you probably can't even measure to begin with so pointless science is pointless.
And stretching your maximum amount may be genetic but people get tight as fuck. Most people have really bad posture as a result of things like how they sit at their desks and it results in over-adjustments from your body which lead to things like back pain, joint pain, etc. When you are more supple these things don't happen.
I'm tall and when I was in ok shape I could put my palms flat on the ground when stretching over and now (I just tried) I can't even touch my toes. Warming up would help but that's a pretty big difference.
No, the point is you don't save money by eating processed crap over real food. No-one suggested you eat a bag of carrots for supper, but if you have a salad made up of fruit and veg and a bit of dressing it's going to be cheaper than a Tesco pizza, won't make you fat, and will have prolly about 5x as many nutrients. Even if you add a hard boiled egg or some other bit of meat to the salad it's still cheaper. Pizza is just a lazy man's choice. Not saying I never have pizza, but at least I know I'm not doing it to save money over a healthier alternative. Students seem to think they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
There's literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite. The mechanisms aren't well understood, and the studies are mostly about preventing cognitive decline in the elderly, but there's a definite link between a healthy body and a healthy mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
That's not quite how it works. Being flexible doesn't prevent bad posture; bad posture reduces flexibility. The cure is to improve your posture, and some stretching can reduce tightness, but if you have good posture in the first place you're not going to get tight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Maybe being 25 lbs over your preferred weight has something to do with that? I'm 50, I haven't stretched in years, and I can still touch my toes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
How can you not have a wealth of personal history which compels you to at least agree that eating healthy means you're not distracted by the myriad tiny discomforts that happen when you eat junk food?
Eating healthy is definitely a lot more expensive than some people imagine. You just can't meet your daily calories on vegtables alone unless that's all you do. Most veggies are below 50kcal/100g, so you'd have to eat about 4kg to sustain yourself. Most of the calories you take in when you eat your veggies are actually oils and carbs... so everything else really. Even adding those you'd be surprised at the volume that you have to eat (and shit) on that diet. The cheapest frozen pizzas are under $1 for about 500kcal (guessing) - so $3 in frozen pizza and $1 in soda will keep you alive just as well as the healthy alternative.
And it's low effort. I like cooking, but I know a lot of people don't.
It's not more expensive to eat healthy. Think about what goes into the high cal foods of dairy and meat. They come from animals who have to eat a lot of grain/veg to put on the weight that gets concentrated in their meat and fat and milk. Most of that grain/veg comes out their ass or burned off as calories they use to live, and the farmer still has to pay for it somehow. That extra expense get passed on to you.
So, grain/veg is always going to generally cheaper per calorie than meat/dairy.
here's the prices I quoted and calories per English pound:
carrots 8p, 41 cal, 510 cal/£1
onions 8p, 40 cal, 500 cal/£1
broccoli 15p, 34 cal, 227 cal/£1
celery 25p, 16 cal, 64 cal/£1
lettuce 5p, 15 cal, 300 cal/£1
banana 8p, 89 cal, 1210 cal/£1
tomatoes 20p, 18 cal, 90 cal/£1
apple 30p, 52 cal, 173 cal/£1
orange 25p, 47 cal, 138 cal/£1
pizza 50p (cheap variety), 265 cal, 530 cal/£1
On that analysis, the pizza seems like a fairly reasonable deal. But it's mostly bread, and buying plain bread is much much better value.
whole wheat bread, 10p, 313 cal, 3130 cal/£1
Nuts are also good value:
peanuts, 97p, 567 cal, 585 cal/£1
So, if you're not too fucking lazy, buy a loaf of bread, cut it into small pieces, sprinkle some salt and pepper on it, drizzle it with oil, and add some chopped tomatoes and maybe aubergine. Then grill it up, and have a piece of fruit for dessert.
A couple of days later, instead of a cheeseburger and soda, get some raw carrots and celery, dip them in salad dressing or chip dip or hoummus, and after 2 or 3 sticks of each have a handful of peanuts, and you'll be plenty full. You'll also be full of vits/mins and the next day you'll have the greatest shit of your life.
Oh yea soda is good value too:
coca cola 13p, 180 cal, 2571 cal/£1
But not as good as just eating the sugar out of a bowl:
white sugar 7p, 387 cal, 5529 cal/£1
So yea, if all your body needs is calories, then plain white sugar is the #1 food.
Carrots look good on paper, but try eating 10lb of carrots daily. Fat and sugar are king when it comes to calories per $ that you can realistically consume.
You can kinda eat healthy on a budget... I don't want to include factory farmed eggs and chicken because I don't think anyone should buy those, but if you're a piece of shit you can get your protein that way. If you eat lots of vegetables - I don't even care how much veggies you eat, the majority of the actual calories you consume are going to be oil and carbs and the veggies are luxury. Rice, Beans, Potatoes... all not great, but better than frozen pizza.
- but actually healthy stuff: greens, coconut oil, cold pressed oil, lean meat, free range eggs, anything fiber, because fiber has no calories... that's the expensive part.