ssh

Stefan ??? Probably I don't wear wife-beaters. i swear the pic you had on here you had you were wearing one I don't own any, but if you can find of pic of me with one then be my guest.

Stefan ??? Probably I don't wear wife-beaters.

Not sure how to correct the post order issue. As for the download, it will depend on the section sometimes or the user group. I can check permissions on that. Teo, when you go to open a topic, instead of clicking the title link, click the "Today 8:00am" link below the last poster, and that takes you to the end.

Should be fine.

Anyone know where I can watch the Rousey UFC fight online for free? As much as I want to see it, I'm not spending fifty bucks.

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active. Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125! Holy shit! I haven't seen 142 since I was about 13. Even when I had cancer and lost all kinds of weight I only got down to ~160. Eating throughout the day actually boosts metabolism. Perhaps you should try 2-3 large meals a day to slow down your metabolism. Eating six small meals throughout the day, or 3 big meals will yield different metabolic rates throughout the day, but at the end of the day it's exactly the same. The thing that changes is the Thermic Effect of Food, which is the energy expended to digest and absorb the food. It's directly proportional to the amount of energy the food contains, 5-10% carb, 0-5% fat, 20-30% protein. Average those numbers together into 11.5% meal one 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal two 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal three 2000kcal, TEF: 230kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal meal one 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal two 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal three 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal four 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal five 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal six 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal seven 400kcal, TEF: 46kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal At the end of the day the same amount of energy was used, and the metabolism is the same. Now if one changed the composition of those meals than they could alter their metabolism somewhat, but that's getting into something else. At least that's what I learned in Bio. :shrugs: I am speaking strictly from my personal experience. I have been on and off again for ~30 years. Perhaps it flies in the face of what you learned, but it has proven to work for me. I'm honestly not even going to try to dispute your info, I just wanted to share what has worked for me. Take from it what you will. Word. I was just going off what I learned in my class--which wasn't always right. Side note: Of both eating habits which did you feel more satiated, or easier to eat less? From what I've read it seems eating less frequently w/ bigger meals is more satiating than multiple smaller meals throughout the day. I'm curious what you found since you've been doing it for a long time. Personally it holds true for me, which in this instance is good since I need all the help I can get. If I am eating more frequently I always feel hungry. I have found very heavy intake of protein in a large meal keeps me full for long periods of time. Conversely, it seems if I munch all day I am always hungry. I even tend to eat in the middle of the night if I am eating multiple meals all day. That's exactly how I feel. In fact I'll eat before bed, and in the middle of the night I contemplate getting up for more food haha.

From the measurements I've seen they don't make a spectacular widebander. Great midrange, but not a great WB on the top end. Many people use them as WB though and are happy, so I guess it's all relative. WB aren't my forte, honestly.....I'm not as well read or experienced with their relative performance. Sean would probably be able to give suggestions much quicker than myself. I'd need to spend some time researching. I've read every time a thread comes up about using a fullrange/widebander about how those 3" (average size) full range speakers don't do super well on the top end or get real loud. I've used to have the Logitech Z-560 4.1 speaker set (still have all the speakers too, amp blew on it) and now I have the Z-5500's on my computer. Both sets use 3" full range speakers (look just like several of the TB speakers) for the highs and quite honestly except maybe for the very highest frequencies I don't notice an issue with the range. Same on the output, the damn things will get almost stupid loud. Now, I'm sure they're not doing anything super special with these things, not at their price point, so either my tastes for high frequency range and output are a fair bit off center in comparison to you guys and your experience, or I've simply and straight up never experienced what really great speakers sound like and the output big power subs can do. I'm sure the answer is a little bit of both, but in my experience with these sets it's hard for me to imagine needing any more output or having any real issues with the upper range response. I guess I just have a hard time understanding where the comments come from. Like I said before.....it has a lot to do with the listener, the listening material, personal preference, etc. Some people can't really hear above ~15khz anyways (sometimes even lower), some music has more info up there than others, some people preference's don't require a lot of top end "air" and "sparkle". Same thing with horns....even the "good" ID horns roll off hard around 15khz in most installations. Output (within the main passband) is sufficient for the average listener to jam on. I like to rock out and haven't had any problems getting enough output. Then again I also don't have 150db of bass..... That's your problem right there. You aren't living man!

Partially, but 30g protein from meat is not that much--certainly less than an average steak don't you think?

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active. Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125! Holy shit! I haven't seen 142 since I was about 13. Even when I had cancer and lost all kinds of weight I only got down to ~160. Eating throughout the day actually boosts metabolism. Perhaps you should try 2-3 large meals a day to slow down your metabolism. Eating six small meals throughout the day, or 3 big meals will yield different metabolic rates throughout the day, but at the end of the day it's exactly the same. The thing that changes is the Thermic Effect of Food, which is the energy expended to digest and absorb the food. It's directly proportional to the amount of energy the food contains, 5-10% carb, 0-5% fat, 20-30% protein. Average those numbers together into 11.5% meal one 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal two 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal three 2000kcal, TEF: 230kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal meal one 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal two 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal three 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal four 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal five 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal six 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal seven 400kcal, TEF: 46kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal At the end of the day the same amount of energy was used, and the metabolism is the same. Now if one changed the composition of those meals than they could alter their metabolism somewhat, but that's getting into something else. At least that's what I learned in Bio. :shrugs: I am speaking strictly from my personal experience. I have been on and off again for ~30 years. Perhaps it flies in the face of what you learned, but it has proven to work for me. I'm honestly not even going to try to dispute your info, I just wanted to share what has worked for me. Take from it what you will. Word. I was just going off what I learned in my class--which wasn't always right. Side note: Of both eating habits which did you feel more satiated, or easier to eat less? From what I've read it seems eating less frequently w/ bigger meals is more satiating than multiple smaller meals throughout the day. I'm curious what you found since you've been doing it for a long time. Personally it holds true for me, which in this instance is good since I need all the help I can get.

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active.Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125! Holy shit! I haven't seen 142 since I was about 13. Even when I had cancer and lost all kinds of weight I only got down to ~160.Eating throughout the day actually boosts metabolism. Perhaps you should try 2-3 large meals a day to slow down your metabolism. Eating six small meals throughout the day, or 3 big meals will yield different metabolic rates throughout the day, but at the end of the day it's exactly the same. The thing that changes is the Thermic Effect of Food, which is the energy expended to digest and absorb the food. It's directly proportional to the amount of energy the food contains, 5-10% carb, 0-5% fat, 20-30% protein. Average those numbers together into 11.5%meal one 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal two 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal three 2000kcal, TEF: 230kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal meal one 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal two 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal three 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal four 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal five 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal six 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal seven 400kcal, TEF: 46kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal At the end of the day the same amount of energy was used, and the metabolism is the same. Now if one changed the composition of those meals than they could alter their metabolism somewhat, but that's getting into something else. At least that's what I learned in Bio. :shrugs: Interesting. The other factor in larger meals is the fact we cannot digest massive amounts of protein all in one setting. Same with fat. It just goes through the tube.Any idea on how much protein? I've heard people say 30g, but I don't believe that.Yeah actually. .. and it is highly dependant on insulin/igf/GH levels. After a work out I bet with some fast sugars you could put back 50-60 grams on the high end. Maybe more maybe less. As for average meals, if your metabolism and enzyme levels are good and high I would bet 40. I'd be curious to see some studies on it. From an evolutionary perspective it just doesn't make sense. Kill an animal, eat a large portion, and only absorb a quarter of the energy. I know protein digestibility isn't 100% either.

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active.Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125! Holy shit! I haven't seen 142 since I was about 13. Even when I had cancer and lost all kinds of weight I only got down to ~160. Eating throughout the day actually boosts metabolism. Perhaps you should try 2-3 large meals a day to slow down your metabolism. Eating six small meals throughout the day, or 3 big meals will yield different metabolic rates throughout the day, but at the end of the day it's exactly the same. The thing that changes is the Thermic Effect of Food, which is the energy expended to digest and absorb the food. It's directly proportional to the amount of energy the food contains, 5-10% carb, 0-5% fat, 20-30% protein. Average those numbers together into 11.5%meal one 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal two 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal three 2000kcal, TEF: 230kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal meal one 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal two 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal three 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal four 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal five 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal six 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal seven 400kcal, TEF: 46kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal At the end of the day the same amount of energy was used, and the metabolism is the same. Now if one changed the composition of those meals than they could alter their metabolism somewhat, but that's getting into something else. At least that's what I learned in Bio. :shrugs: Interesting. The other factor in larger meals is the fact we cannot digest massive amounts of protein all in one setting. Same with fat. It just goes through the tube. Any idea on how much protein? I've heard people say 30g, but I don't believe that.

Check out the Tang Bang W3-1364SA.

Sell them to someone else gullible enough to build a "custom" driver.

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active. Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125! Holy shit! I haven't seen 142 since I was about 13. Even when I had cancer and lost all kinds of weight I only got down to ~160. Eating throughout the day actually boosts metabolism. Perhaps you should try 2-3 large meals a day to slow down your metabolism. Eating six small meals throughout the day, or 3 big meals will yield different metabolic rates throughout the day, but at the end of the day it's exactly the same. The thing that changes is the Thermic Effect of Food, which is the energy expended to digest and absorb the food. It's directly proportional to the amount of energy the food contains, 5-10% carb, 0-5% fat, 20-30% protein. Average those numbers together into 11.5% meal one 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal two 1000kcal, TEF: 115kcal meal three 2000kcal, TEF: 230kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal meal one 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal two 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal three 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal four 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal five 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal six 600kcal, TEF: 69kcal meal seven 400kcal, TEF: 46kcal 4000kcal, total TEF: 460kcal At the end of the day the same amount of energy was used, and the metabolism is the same. Now if one changed the composition of those meals than they could alter their metabolism somewhat, but that's getting into something else. At least that's what I learned in Bio. :shrugs:

You gonna shit funny for a week. Doesn't ever do that to me. I regularly order it "chef hot" or 10 or whatever the high number is. Doesn't change anything. I'm guessing since you somewhat regularly eat it, or it's the "good stuff?" :shrugs:

5' 9.5" So I have the frame to get fairly big. Does it have other stuff besides Omega 3 & 6? Reason I ask is I still eat a fair amount of sardines and salmon. Another thing I want to try is cod liver oil for vitamin k. Walk around town with a tackle box of Udo's oil selling it like bud deliveries in CA. LMAO! It might have some vitamins. I never really paid attentiom. However, it is more than the label gives you. I don't know how or why. Maybe his cold press and unique blend preserve something. It just works in making you feel better. The skinny fellas just add it into the shake for more kcall. The shake I usually recommend is a banana, or 2 if you need it., 30-50 grams of protein. Add a few tbsp of Udo's at the rate you feel you need to hit the kcal. Kind of like your butter drinking or olive oil drinking. Super dense. And it just works somehow. Sounds good.

5' 9.5" So I have the frame to get fairly big. Does it have other stuff besides Omega 3 & 6? Reason I ask is I still eat a fair amount of sardines and salmon. Another thing I want to try is cod liver oil for vitamin k. Walk around town with a tackle box of Udo's oil selling it like bud deliveries in CA.

I trained my body to be that way, then it all went to hell. It's about activity level, adapting to needs, and being active. Our amounts of food were different though. I was in the 3500-7000 kcal level for 4-5 years. I burned off more than I ate though. I was losing pound after pound throughout the whole time. Sometimes i was gaining so much muscle it didnt make the scale move much thougb. That's the biggest thing that helped me was simply spreading my food across the day. At first I did the IF (intermittent fasting) because I believed it had merit (which I still believe it does if one can make it work, but isn't an end all approach), and it was working, but it was also coupled with beginner gains, so not as much food was perhaps necessary. I just saw other people who could sit down three times a day, and consume massive amounts, so I believed I could to. For a while I could actually, but as time went on I gradually starting losing appetite that way, like I almost had a ten minute eating window before I'd start to feel that I couldn't eat anymore. So I ditched IF, and gave myself much more time to eat (whole day vs 8hour window). Spreading food across the day this way has definitely made it easier. Based on O2-CO2 mask reading of REE, and MET tables, my maintenance is about 2900kcal, and I only weigh ~142, but this exact time last year I was 125!

Pretty much. I've actually been getting 1.34lb packets of 85% lean 15% fat ground beef from Costco, half gallon of lactose free whole milk, pre wo shake, post wo shake, dinner with veggies, and I'm finally up where I need to be. Eating that much ground beef every other day perhaps isn't the best idea, but it's working for a few weeks until I rotate to something else. Maybe it's just the fat kid in me but I don't understand how someone not afraid of calorie dense food can have issues getting enough calories. Part of it has to do with the protein powder I was taking. I switched protein powder and my appetite is pretty normal now.

Feel better?

You gonna shit funny for a week.

That part is easy--just ask Kevin.

As more time passed after I saw it, the more I felt jipped (sp?). Gypped. From Gypsy. Ah. Learn something new everyday.

As more time passed after I saw it, the more I felt jipped (sp?).

No it was some processed shit we had in the pantry. I'll try that next time I'm at the store--thanks. I'll probably grab some nutella while I'm at it.