Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Health and Nutrition => Topic started by: Danish on January 13, 2019, 01:40:58 PM
-
Any advice for stress and OCD. I am considering leaving high school due to the stress I'm going through.
-
What is OCD? Take a GED test and leave High School. Keep yourself busy, and beware of the company you keep. This is where troubles can start. Don't get involved with gossip/talk. Do a job and go home. Keep to the sacraments, and I suggest 3 rosaries a day.
-
You don't give a whole lot of information, ie. Have you been medically diagnosed with OCD and anxiety disorder? (There's no such diagnosis as "stress.") Are you being professionally treated for these? Medicine? Counseling? Are you male or female? What is your age? What is your high school like? In USA? Public? Catholic? Is it large, impersonal? Small? Teachers take personal interest or don't care? Are you the victim of bullies? Do you have friends? Neither, feel as if you may as well be invisible? Is your family supportive? Do you hear Mass? Is the Catholic Faith a normal part of your daily life? What about your family? Do you attend Mass together?
What are your immediate plans post-high school? University? Community college? A vocation? A trade? If a trade, what preparation is necessary? Marriage and children? Live at home and find a job because you're disabled by your OCD and anxiety?
Without more information, I can hardly give advice. A GED may be the way to go if you're female, 16 or older, and plan to live at home and work until you marry. If you're male, a GED probably won't cut it, especially if you intend to marry! Most religious also need more than a GED. Many require a minimum of a high school diploma.
I'm a special ed. teacher, grades 1 and 2, in the USA. State of New York, if that's helpful.
-
I don't know what your options are in Denmark, but I will pray for you.
-
Hello.
I am a 21 year old man from Denmark considering conversion to Rome.
My current parish is a bit liberal and I would like for to know weather or not it is possible to go to a private class with a traditional priest instead of taking an RCIA class were I learn about how Catholicism is about respecting other religions or something like that.
I am willing to travel a far distance for that.
From Introduction.
-
Any advice for stress and OCD. I am considering leaving high school due to the stress I'm going through.
Stress is your body's way of responding to demands or threats. When you sense danger—whether it is real or imagined—the body's defenses kick into high gear in a rapid, automatic process known as the “fight -or-flight” reaction or the “stress response.” It can be useful, but it shouldn't be overdone or your health suffers.
Adding to Seraphina's questions - why are you still in school at 21? Some of Seraphina's questions are answered above, but still a few unanswered?
Are you under treatment for OCD or did you diagnose yourself? Beware of giving yourself or accepting labelling.
-
Any advice for stress and OCD. I am considering leaving high school due to the stress I'm going through.
There's no such thing as "OCD". That's a false notion created by the pseudo science industries of psychology & psychiatry, which they disseminate among other fake disorders onto the masses as a means to control them and weaken their resolve and sovereignty. There are bad habits, lack of discipline and not trusting in God to provide security and giving you the confidence that you did something correct. Pray for strength and trust in God to break this problem that manifests in you.
Take a GED test and leave High School. Keep yourself busy, and beware of the company you keep. This is where troubles can start. Don't get involved with gossip/talk. Do a job and go home. Keep to the sacraments, and I suggest 3 rosaries a day.
This is good, practical advice that is a necessary baseline for any person considering conversion to the Catholic Faith, who also struggles with habits and adversities of the modern world. Well done, Songbird.
-
There's no such thing as "OCD".
You're an idiot. It's a very real thing, and I've known people who struggle with it and find relief in certain medications. It's well know that certain neurotransmitters affect emotions and thought patterns, can increase fear and anxiety. Fear can trigger physiological fight-or-flight responses in the body, and then a certain traumatic episode can cause flashbacks.
You're an ignoramus and try to pretend that we are disembodied spirits rather than part spiritual and part animal.
-
You can always look at vocational schools. It wouldn’t hurt to see what they have to offer. I’d also suggest learning a few different trades to see which one you could be a master in.
Even if you are looking to convert I highly suggest cultivating a prayer life. Our Lady will never leave you high, and dry. It’s inportant to remember as with any ones prayer life that God will not always answer the way you want, but He will answer the way you need for your spiritual growth. It will be very frustrating, but stay determined.
“ Catholic life is warefare, and we must be battle ready” being battle ready means getting a handle on all bad habits, and things that distract you from God, and the main goal of eternal life. You can do this because God never allows what we can’t handle.
-
From Introduction.
From one of the docuмents of Vatican II;
Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
It follows then that it is contrary to the spirit of Vatican II to say that we 'respect other religions. We love all the people because as Jesus commands us to love out neighbor as ourselves.
-
You're an idiot. It's a very real thing, and I've known people who struggle with it and find relief in certain medications. It's well know that certain neurotransmitters affect emotions and thought patterns, can increase fear and anxiety. Fear can trigger physiological fight-or-flight responses in the body, and then a certain traumatic episode can cause flashbacks.
You're an ignoramus and try to pretend that we are disembodied spirits rather than part spiritual and part animal.
#deceived
#PartakerOfModernWorld
#soy
#LowT
#irascible
#effeminate
#UnderCarbed
#OverWeight
#GoyEnslavedByBigPharma
-
Any advice for stress and OCD.
Nutrition and diet can cause/fix many health issues. I'd advise the following:
1. You need some good, healthy oils in your diet. Works great to calm the nerves and mind. Take a few tablespoons a day of good, quality coconut oil. Or buy some good fish oil pills.
2. You need magnesium for stress! You can buy some supplements and also get it from veggies.
3. Start juicing veggies. You can buy a quality juicer at Walmart for like $50. Use Spinach, kale, (any green, leafy veggies), with some carrots, apples, lemons, for taste. Juicing will change your life.
4. EXERCISE. If you're stressed, you need to exercise and burn off your increased cortizol levels. Take a long walk, jog for 20 minutes, swim, use weights.
5. Lower use of alcohol/caffeine so you get better SLEEP. If you have trouble sleeping, use melatonin or valerian root.
6. Pray, trust in God and put all your confidence in Him for any worries you might have.
7. Visit the site (www.earthclinic.com (http://www.earthclinic.com)) for any detailed health problems you may have. Tons of suggestions and info.
Good luck and God bless!
-
Nutrition and diet can cause/fix many health issues. I'd advise the following:
1. You need some good, healthy oils in your diet. Works great to calm the nerves and mind. Take a few tablespoons a day of good, quality coconut oil. Or buy some good fish oil pills.
2. You need magnesium for stress! You can buy some supplements and also get it from veggies.
3. Start juicing veggies. You can buy a quality juicer at Walmart for like $50. Use Spinach, kale, (any green, leafy veggies), with some carrots, apples, lemons, for taste. Juicing will change your life.
4. EXERCISE. If you're stressed, you need to exercise and burn off your increased cortizol levels. Take a long walk, jog for 20 minutes, swim, use weights.
5. Lower use of alcohol/caffeine so you get better SLEEP. If you have trouble sleeping, use melatonin or valerian root.
6. Pray, trust in God and put all your confidence in Him for any worries you might have.
7. Visit the site (www.earthclinic.com (http://www.earthclinic.com)) for any detailed health problems you may have. Tons of suggestions and info.
Good luck and God bless!
Great advice. I agree with the diet approach. Many people are indeed gravely magnesium deficient. Many people claim that INOSITOL helps OCD a lot.
-
from quick Google search:
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts ( obsessions ) and behaviors ( compulsions ) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over.
I don't know anything about it.
I can say that I have found that when people have too much time of their hands, a soft easy life, they tend to go into many disorders, like depression. A good war would eliminate all these problems people have today in the "West", make people come back to the realities of life. I also know that stress can be eliminated by hard exercise like wind sprints and weight lifting with little rest between sets, (hard exercise, not jogging, gingerly bike rides and hikes and such)
-
Other things to help your mood: limit processed sugar, add probiotic/fermented foods/drinks.
For a “quick fix” until you start making life changes with diet/exercise (this will be your long-term, permanent solution), get some homeopathy remedies for emotional stress situations.
-
Any advice for stress and OCD. I am considering leaving high school due to the stress I'm going through.
Is there something particular that is causing this stress or it this just some general malaise?
-
Quid claimed that it was due to a lack of trust in God. That shows he knows nothing about it.
People with OCD are plagued with obsessive, recurring, intrusive thoughts. One example is about whether or not they turned off the oven, or locked the door. And it's not due to short-term memory issues. They could clearly remember locking the door, but still not be "sure" about it. This isn't about confidence in God, but about confidence in self. Or another OCD person might wash his hands over and over again because he's not sure that he got everything. I knew a Traditional priest once who was diagnosed with OCD, who repeated the words of consecration over and over and over again, because he was never quite sure he got them right so as to make it valid.
-
(hard exercise, not jogging, gingerly bike rides and hikes and such)
[/font][/size][/color]
You've obviously never heard of intervals, sprints, high threshhold, and high intensity training on long climbs which is done with jogging and cycling.
-
One example is about whether or not they turned off the oven, or locked the door. And it's not due to short-term memory issues. They could clearly remember locking the door, but still not be "sure" about it.
That's because they lack trust in the Lord God giving them the aptitude to do these simple tasks with certainty. They lack faith in the Lord God providing security to the person, which is why they repeatedly do the same maneuvers over and over (checking to make sure the oven is turned off or the door is locked).
Learn how to think.
-
You've obviously never heard of intervals, sprints, high threshhold, and high intensity training on long climbs which is done with jogging and cycling.
Well, under those conditions, jogging is no longer light exercise, as he had described it. By adding the intensity of long climbs, you're changing the nature of the exercise by increasing the heart rate.
-
That's because they lack trust in the Lord God giving them the aptitude to do these simple tasks with certainty.
:facepalm:
No, it's because they have lowered levels of serotonin.
-
By adding the intensity of long climbs, you're changing the nature of the exercise by increasing the heart rate.
That's something very alien to you, isn't it?
#lethargy
#SoftLiving
#domesticated
-
That's something very alien to you, isn't it?
Lack of healthy fats in your diet is causing your brain to malfunction.
-
Lack of healthy fats in your diet is causing your brain to malfunction.
No, lack of sugar in your diet (and effeminacy) has caused you to be irascible and your brain to work at substandard levels.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
-
:facepalm:
No, it's because they have lowered levels of serotonin.
By your sugar-deprived "logic", you blame lack of serotonin, dopamine, and other brain chemicals for committing sin.
We shouldn't be surprised because you, also, emphatically stated "God isn't a Catholic God" some time ago. Utter heresy.
-
Some posters have recommended taking the GED and leaving school. GEDs are practically worthless unless you also have at least an AA. I know, I got one when I had to leave school to care for my elderly relatives. They are supposedly equal to a high school diploma, but in reality, employers don't take them seriously. Others I know who got them found out the same. Barely better than being a drop-out, and I scored in the 99th percentile. The only thing they're good for is meeting the criteria for enrolling in community college while still a minor. Look into things deeply before you decide to opt for a GED.
-
By your sugar-deprived "logic", you blame lack of serotonin, dopamine, and other brain chemicals for committing sin.
Another example of how your diet has compromised your brain.
Since when does being nervous and anxious about whether you locked the door constitute sin?
-
We shouldn't be surprised because you, also, emphatically stated "God isn't a Catholic God" some time ago. Utter heresy.
What I said was that this can in fact be understood in a true sense. But, then, you clearly know nothing of Catholic philosophy. God Himself is not Catholic, i.e. the subject of the term Catholic, since God is pure existence without essence and cannot be defined that way. But it's false in the other sense, that He is not the God OF Catholics, the object of Catholic. But I might as well be writing Mandarin Chinese when discussing such things with the likes of yourself.
-
Another example of how your diet has compromised your brain.
Since when does being nervous and anxious about whether you locked the door constitute sin?
Strawman.
Yep, you need sugar. Too much fat has clogged your arteries, thus, restricted blood flow to your brain, and you're in short supply of the brain's must essential fuel - glucose (sugar).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
#Lardi
But, then, you clearly know nothing of Catholic philosophy. God Himself is not Catholic, i.e. the subject of the term Catholic, since God is pure existence without essence and cannot be defined that way.
God has an essence - Truth, Love, Holiness, Omnipotence. The Catholic Faith is a reflection of His Essence because it's the only Faith that contains the holiness and truth of God. God is Catholic. If He wasn't Catholic, He never would have given His children the Faith as the ONLY conduit to Him. You make no sense. Your stubborn pride only digs yourself into a deeper hole. Just concede your error and heresy, punk.
What I said was that this can in fact be understood in a true sense. But it's false in the other sense, that He is not the God OF Catholics, the object of Catholic. But I might as well be writing Mandarin Chinese when discussing such things with the likes of yourself.
Lame attempt at trying to save face. Failed spin.
-
Ladislaus attempts to excuse irrational behavior ("OCD") by blaming it on a low levels of serotonin. This isn't any different than blaming sin NOT on free will, wickedness and poor character, but rather blaming the sin on irregular levels of a brain's chemistry which, de facto, would disqualify the transgression from being an actual sin.
-
Hey all. Thanks for the replies and sorry for the lack of information.
I am 21, yes and still in what would be equivalent to high school in America. It's a bit different though. It's called HF and is not for a specific age group.
I have some issues that has kept me from pursuing a normal school path.
My family is not Catholic and I only recently started trying to practise the faith. I attended my first Latin Mass last friday.
I hope that God will lead me home to His Church.
My thoughts are all over the place and I really need peace of mind.
-
You are doing a great job so far seeking truth :)
The devil loves doubt. He lives in it, and will inject it into every part of your life if it will take you away from God. My best advice is prayer, meditation on Christ passion, and mass.
-
You've obviously never heard of intervals, sprints, high threshhold, and high intensity training on long climbs which is done with jogging and cycling.
What I wrote was not gingerly jogs, gingerly cycling, gingerly hiking. You are right though in that I do not know what they call today what I described. What you defined, gave a modern name to, I was doing and teaching 40+ years ago.
-
My advice having observed the young adults around me and 30 years since is to start getting a plan together now.
OCD has advantages in certain jobs such as data analyst, data science, risk manager, data audit and data curator and handling and manipulating data (loosely called Big Data). This is where the largest growth in well paid white collar jobs will be over the next few years. I jumped to this sector 11 years ago because I was listening for the early signals of where the next gold rush was coming from. Prior to that I sold trading/risk systems to banks and hedge funds, but the 2008 crash put the dampers on that market. There's still money to be made, but only 50-60% of the gold rush days of the 90s and 00s
I only have 1 real skill in life and that is being an efficient leech and bandwagon rider. I get in on trends early, build up a network of contacts and milk it for all it is worth. I have a nose for what the next big thing is and can smell the money rushing in from investment funds and private equity. Booming industries have HUGE amounts of money sloshing around in them and everything, wages, conference prices, contractor rates all boom as a result. It's difficult to avoid some of that money sticking to you.
Ride a 20 year wave and you can own a $1m house by 40 years old outright just by being an employee. Then with no mortgage and two paid for cars in the drive, you can downsize/backpedal.
Data is the new oil and millions and millions of new jobs will be created in almost every company in the world. Other jobs are going to disappear or reduce to 10% of what they were as robots take over those roles (call centre operator, bookkeeper, financial trader/broker, clerks, low-level accounts). But data jobs are going to boom over the next 20 years. These jobs require a VERY in-depth interest in some pretty esoteric data sets (and if your social skills are lacking that is no disadvantage). Once you deeply understand the data set and understand data quality and completeness you are extremely difficult to replace and therefore your salary tends to outpace wage inflation as firms compete for staff.
Ask the adults around you who know you and those whom you trust to suggest what they think your aptitudes and skills might be. The write to independent professionals and in a humble and polite way ask them for their experience of the career and to tell you the ups and downs. You might be surprised how many people are happy to help if you ask in the right way. Ask strangers not friends as they are more likely to tell you the unvarnished truth about the pros and cons of the sector. Matthew for example could tell you about the realities of being a developer and working from home, the taxes, the problems of working on your own, etc.
Nowadays, it is more important that ever to pick a career path and stick to it. If you decide to become a computer programmer at 40 or change from computer programming to sales and marketing or sales and marketing to running a logistics company then be prepared to take a big cut in salary and climb the greasy pole again. In your 20s you have a lot of ambition and energy but few unique skills and little to contribute. By your 40s you need to have those skills established (by reputation as much as reality) so you can back pedal in your late 40s and 50s when you are lacking in energy. Moreover by your 40s and 50s you are in the middle of raising a large Catholic family (unavoidable if your wife isn't contracepting) so you need to be able to back-pedal a bit to spend the time with your half-dozen to one-dozen children to make sure they get the skills in life to not be dropouts and basement dwellers.
Pick once, pick wisely and throw yourself at it five or six days per week. If you are really busy with work and learning useful commercial skills you should find that the other problems handle themselves. Women will find you if they know you are earning more than the other young men on their radar. If at 26 you decide to try a vocation, then you can afford to take a couple of years out, fund yourself and come back to your career at 28.
If university is free in Denmark and you are smart enough, then go and do something sensible like a STEM subject. Otherwise get into the world of work. In truth for most jobs, most employers don't care much about university degrees. They want reliable employees who turn up and get the job done. I am regularly in Copenhagen, Arhus and Esbjerg so I know what the local jobs scene is like for the banking, insurance and telco (mobile) sectors.
You also have to think of a job that 1 billion Indians and 1.3 billion Chinese cannot easily do in the next 20 years. Because the internet makes them cheaper to employ and companies are always going to watch their bottom line. No Ching-Chong is going to be able to sell a large AI system to a bank, because those are sold in English and will continue to be. An Indian might be able to sell a system, but generally speaking the smaller vendors who sell cutting edge technology are not based out of India and frankly the number of Indians who are westernised enough to do business with western run companies are fairly few and they are usually working for those companies and selling THEIR stuff to India. The vast majority of Indians are peasants. Some of them well educated, but with a peasant mindset.
-
God has an essence - Truth, Love, Holiness, Omnipotence. The Catholic Faith is a reflection of His Essence because it's the only Faith that contains the holiness and truth of God.
You embarrass yourself pretending you have even the slightest clue about what essence and existence even are. By the way you explained it, it's obvious that you have no clue. Those things you describe are attributes or perfections of God, but are not His essence (assuming He even had an essence other than His mere existence).
St. Thomas Aquinas:
Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence. Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above, it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.
And the distinction I applied in understanding the term Catholic as being either subjective or objective might as well have been Chinese to you.
Run along, little boy; you have no business discussing theology or philosophy with anyone who's taken even a 101-level course. Go sit in a corner and suck on your candy and sugar.
-
God has an essence - Truth, Love, Holiness, Omnipotence. The Catholic Faith is a reflection of His Essence because it's the only Faith that contains the holiness and truth of God. God is Catholic. If He wasn't Catholic, He never would have given His children the Faith as the ONLY conduit to Him. You make no sense. Your stubborn pride only digs yourself into a deeper hole. Just concede your error and heresy, punk.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sab86jt_25Y/VurjXoHqQ0I/AAAAAAAANh4/-snFYjUgsuQhuTSx9CltqrDBxRYHsrGQA/s1600/INSULT.jpg)
-
You embarrass yourself...
Says the overweight jealous guy who embarrasses himself with his effeminate outbursts.
St. Thomas Aquinas: [...]
The St. Thomas Aquinas quote isn't a refutation against what I stated. In fact, it supports the truth of my position. Your attempt to appear learned and lofty-minded only backfired on you. LOL
Have some sugar, your brain needs fuel to think more clearly.
In denying the Essence of God - the very fact that God is a Catholic God, Lardislaus reveals that he worships the same "god" in the Vatican II docuмents that teaches as long as you're a good person, and you're a good practitioner of your non-Catholic religion, and you don't die in the state of mortal sin (but rejecting the Catholic Faith founded by the true God - Jesus Christ because He Himself is Catholic, is, indeed, a mortal sin) you can have salvation. Ultimately, there is no difference between Lardislaus and Frank. They both believe "God isn't a Catholic God". Everything else is missing the forest for the trees.
#LosesFightsAgainstPinatas
-
More incoherent babble from Quid.
That's the problem in arguing with you; you are so ignorant of the basic concepts and terms involved that you imagine that you're right when you couldn't be more wrong.
-
Catholics, by definition, are members of the Body of Christ. God cannot be a Member of Himself.
It's really not that hard, Quid.
-
Catholics, by definition, are members of the Body of Christ. God cannot be a Member of Himself.
It's really not that hard, Quid.
Yes, Catholics are members of the BODY of Christ. Christ is the Logos. Christ is God. God is Catholic.
It's really not that hard, Lardislaus.
More incoherent babble from Quid.
It's not my fault that you lack reading comprehension.
-
Greg, thx for that advice. Interesting to hear about market trends across the world.
-
#deceived
#PartakerOfModernWorld
#soy
#LowT
#irascible
#effeminate
#UnderCarbed
#OverWeight
#GoyEnslavedByBigPharma
Are all the other mental disorders we knew about before the 20th century also "bad habits" or are they real?
-
Yes, Catholics are members of the BODY of Christ. Christ is the Logos. Christ is God. God is Catholic.
Women are also members of the body of Christ, does that make Christ a woman?
-
Women are also members of the body of Christ, does that make Christ a woman?
Dumb rhetorical question that lacks the Catholic Faith.
The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. This Church, founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter, is exclusively Catholic.
Jesus Christ is the Logos. You need to learn yourself what that actually means.
Jesus Christ is God.
God is Catholic.
-
Are all the other mental disorders we knew about before the 20th century also "bad habits" or are they real?
You should do a lot of self-reflection to figure it out on your own. You obviously have a lot of issues requiring self-examination.
-
Many cases of mental illness can be caused by Lyme Disease, which has a similar spirochete (bacterium) that causes syphilis. In both end stages (final stage leading to death), both Lyme and syphilis can cause homicidal tendencies. Lyme disease was weaponized at Plum Island by the German spies from Operation Paperclip. It is important to realize that Lyme Disease can be transmitted by the bite of ticks, mosquitoes, fleas, black widow spiders, and sɛҳuąƖ contact. Tests for Lyme disease are not well developed because Lyme Disease may not be in the blood at the time of the test. Testing for antibiodies may not be successful either.
Although one course of antibiotics does not help because the spirochete can hide as within the bodily tissues or brain as a cyst, film, or other stage, many courses of different antibiotics may be necessary to get rid of Lyme Disease. Colloidal silver can help, but it may be necessary to take it for a couple of years.
More information can be obtained from Dr. Mercola.
Lyme Disease Signs, Symptoms and Treatment - Mercola.com (https://articles.mercola.com/lyme-disease.aspx)
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection that can be transmitted by ticks. Some top authorities on Lyme disease, like Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, warn that the bacteria that cause it can also be spread by other insects like fleas, mosquitoes, mites and spiders. Lyme disease remains one of the most serious and controversial epidemics today.
I lost a friend to Lyme Disease. She did not realize that she had it. She had the typical symptoms of skin rashes as the spirochetes cause damage to the skin and can travel throughout the body causing a multitude of symptoms including night sweats, headaches, dizziness, panic attacks, insomnia, rambling speech, forgetfulness, burning and itchy skin, and the symptoms of diabetes. As a result, she had stress and anxiety, which doctors treated with psychoactive drugs. She finally died of pancreatic cancer most likely due to all the drugs they gave her. She was in a lot of pain. She also exhibited signs of cadmium poisoning as she loved to make Jєωelry. This is probably what caused her doctors to fail to diagnose her in a timely manner. There were too many things going on.
Her sister was an avid outdoorsman/woman who most likely contacted Lyme Disease as she walked through the woods where she encountered many biting insects. Although she officially died of cancer, she had been treated for mental illness and rashes and was hospitalized for most of her adult life.
-
I am 21, yes and still in what would be equivalent to high school in America. It's a bit different though. It's called HF and is not for a specific age group.
I have some issues that has kept me from pursuing a normal school path.
That sounds analogous to taking general education courses in college here in the US. One thing that made things difficult for me after going to community college and transferring over to a state university was not working at the same time. If you stick with it try to hold down a part-time job as well.
I learned the faith by reading books. The only time I had to be instructed by a priest was when I was undergoing preparation for confirmation as an adult.
You were recommended 'My Catholic Faith' by another user. I am not a fan of this catechism. I threw it away after a year. You don't have to spend money on it either, you can read it here:
http://www.sacredheart-op.org/Doctrine.htm
The reason for tossing it was Chapter 70. Other then that I don't recall having any other objections to it.
You're doing good if you recognize the ridiculousness of respecting other religions.
A catechism I recommend to others is 'Little Catechism of the Cure of Ars'.
I am not exactly sure what retailer to suggest. I would have thought Amazon would of had a .dk domain.
https://www.saxo.com/dk/little-catechism-of-the-cure-of-ars_jean-marie-baptiste-vianney_haeftet_9780895553232
-
What I do now has nothing to do with the area I studied for my bachelors degree.
If I could go back and change things, I would go to community college, and obtain an AA degree in the trade field I am in currently.
Others at my workplace decided to go to trade school, but community colleges offer the same material, albeit with not as much hands on training.
You can buy the same textbooks colleges use in their classes and read them yourself, without the benefit of an instructor. I ask my co-workers, all the time, the questions I would have asked an instructor, and for the most part I learn things on the job.
I continue to buy textbooks so as to continue my education myself, without resorting to school.
-
Dumb rhetorical question that lacks the Catholic Faith.
The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. This Church, founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter, is exclusively Catholic.
Jesus Christ is the Logos. You need to learn yourself what that actually means.
Jesus Christ is God.
God is Catholic.
I like how you just completely ignore when your own arguments get shot down. You argued that because that Catholics are members of the Body of Christ, Christ is therefore Catholic. By that logic, women being members of the Body of Christ makes Christ a woman. I was just saying Christ is a woman, you illiterate cretin, I was saying that's the conclusion your line of thinking comes to. Any rational person would've realised their mistake and corrected themselves, but of course you go on another emotional tirade. And yet you accuse others of being unmasculine.
-
Dumb rhetorical question that lacks the Catholic Faith.
The Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. This Church, founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter, is exclusively Catholic.
Jesus Christ is the Logos. You need to learn yourself what that actually means.
Jesus Christ is God.
God is Catholic.
In case you haven't noticed, Catholics are Christians. The Catholic Church is the true Christian Church. Therefore, by your logic, Christ is Christian. Christ is a follower of Christ. Do you not see how nonsensical that sounds?
-
I like how you just completely ignore when your own arguments get shot down. You argued that because that Catholics are members of the Body of Christ, Christ is therefore Catholic. By that logic, women being members of the Body of Christ makes Christ a woman.
My argument stands up unbreakable like iron because it's based in the truth. Please educate yourself on The Logos, only then will you understand why God is Catholic, hence, His building His Church upon Peter, and outside of this Church there is no salvation.
In case you haven't noticed, Catholics are Christians. The Catholic Church is the true Christian Church. Therefore, by your logic, Christ is Christian. Christ is a follower of Christ. Do you not see how nonsensical that sounds?
We can all see how lacking in Faith and nonsensical you sound.
I was just saying Christ is a woman, you illiterate cretin, I was saying that's the conclusion your line of thinking comes to. Any rational person would've realised their mistake and corrected themselves, but of course you go on another emotional tirade. And yet you accuse others of being unmasculine.
The effeminate name-calling and emotional tirade is all you. It's evident by you that male menstruation is a true phenomenon.
-
My argument stands up unbreakable like iron because it's based in the truth. Please educate yourself on The Logos, only then will you understand why God is Catholic, hence, His building His Church upon Peter, and outside of this Church there is no salvation.
You're just gonna ignore how God is a woman by your moronic logic?
The effeminate name-calling and emotional tirade is all you. It's evident by you that male menstruation is a true phenomenon.
Stunning refutation: "no u"
You have the debating skills of a brain-damaged chimp.
-
You're just gonna ignore how God is a woman by your moronic logic?
Stunning refutation: "no u"
You have the debating skills of a brain-damaged chimp.
That's your moronic strawman.
Too bad your most elevated thinking is at a sub base level of normal human beings.
-
That's your moronic strawman.
It's like trying to explain calculus to a dog.
You said Catholics are members of Christ's body, and that therefore Christ is Catholic.
The logic there being if X (https://whatis.techtarget.com/WhatIs/images/elem-of.gif) Y, Y = X.
But women are members of the Body of Christ, so by *your* logic, not mine, Christ would have to be a woman. I was just trying to point out the hole in that particular argument, that's what honest debates are all about. But instead of accepting that that particular argument was bogus, you just screeched and took it as a personal attack like the shemale you are.
Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty would've realised their little equation was logically unsound when presented with that conclusion, but not you of course. Just like every time you have an argument with anyone else I see you start screeching about about #soy instead of trying to have an honest debate. Is there anyone here you have ever had a constuctive conversation with?
-
Is there anyone here you have ever had a constuctive conversation with?
A few people but only briefly. Then he gets impatient and starts typing "hashtags".
-
A few people but only briefly. Then he gets impatient and starts typing "hashtags".
You're just mad because you struggle with your diet, and you're envious that my high carb/sugar & low fat/oil/animal protein diet keeps me at single digit body fat, strong, and full of vitality.
-
blah blah blah
Since you and Lardislaus are ignorant of The Logos, let me try to explain things from a more simple and historical perspective. God gave the seed of Catholicism to Righteous Abraham. The Faith of the early Hebrews was Catholicism as a child - still not made whole by Christ. You and Lardislaus should know that Jesus Christ kept steadfast the Faith of Abraham. The Christ was an early Hebrew who lived by, and fulfilled, the Law. The Catholic Church/Faith is the Faith of Abraham made whole by the Christ. Jesus Christ is God. To deny that God is Catholic is akin to rejecting that Jesus Christ was an early Hebrew. It denies the Christ was a practitioner of the Faith of Abraham. The reality is the Catholic Church didn't start from nothing as soon the Christ's Divine Sacrifice was completed. The Catholic Church developed organically from the Faith of Abraham and made whole when Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and prophesy. Again, Jesus Christ was an early Hebrew (essentially an early Catholic), and that Faith was made whole when He was sacrificed on the cross and His Church built upon Peter. Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father in Heaven. The Catholic Church is the ONLY ark of salvation. Jesus Christ, Who is God, is Catholic.
-
You're just mad because you struggle with your diet, and you're envious that my high carb/sugar & low fat/oil/animal protein diet keeps me at single digit body fat, strong, and full of vitality.
Diabetic super powers.
-
Since you and Lardislaus are ignorant of The Logos, let me try to explain things from a more simple and historical perspective. God gave the seed of Catholicism to Righteous Abraham. The Faith of the early Hebrews was Catholicism as a child - still not made whole by Christ. You and Lardislaus should know that Jesus Christ kept steadfast the Faith of Abraham. The Christ was an early Hebrew who lived by, and fulfilled, the Law. The Catholic Church/Faith is the Faith of Abraham made whole. Jesus Christ is God. To deny that God is Catholic is akin to rejecting that Jesus Christ was an early Hebrew. It denies the Christ was a practitioner of the Faith of Abraham. The reality is the Catholic Church didn't start from nothing as soon the Christ's Divine Sacrifice was completed. The Catholic Church developed organically from the Faith of Abraham when Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and prophesy. Again, Jesus Christ was an early Hebrew (essentially an early Catholic), and that Faith was made whole when He was sacrifice on the cross and His Church built upon Peter. Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father in Heaven. The Catholic Church is the ONLY ark of salvation. Jesus Christ, Who is God, is Catholic.
Disproving of the argument does not mean disproving of the conclusion.
-
Any advice for stress and OCD. I am considering leaving high school due to the stress I'm going through.
Just in case people forgot what this thread was about.
-
Diabetic super powers.
More ignorance from you. Diabetes (type 2) is caused by high fats & oil consumption. Sugar, and low fats, cures diabetes. The science and a German doctor proved it. Educate yourself (and disregard the Jєω doctor who speaks first):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLFApkwv2A
Disproving of the argument does not mean disproving of the conclusion.
You simply lack understanding of The Logos and the Catholic Faith. You're obstinately ignorant and effeminate.
-
More ignorance from you. Diabetes (type 2) is caused by high fats & oil consumption. Sugar, and low fats, cures diabetes. The science and a German doctor proved it. Educate yourself (and disregard the Jєω doctor who speaks first):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzLFApkwv2A
Fun little vegan conferences you listen to, but man has been eating meat and oils for as long as he's existed, whereas refined sugar was a luxury until the 20th century. You're telling me that a 20th century problem was caused by foods we've always been eating. I wonder what your teeth are like with all that sugar you're eating, or are dentists lying about that too?
You simply lack understanding of The Logos and the Catholic Faith. You're obstinately ignorant and effeminate.
The Logos have nothing to do with my point. My point was that your argument was faulty, not the conclusion. Hence why I said "disproving the argument does not mean disproving the conclusion". Learn to read.
-
but man has been eating meat and oils for as long as he's existed, whereas refined sugar was a luxury until the 20th century. You're telling me that a 20th century problem was caused by foods we've always been eating. I wonder what your teeth are like with all that sugar you're eating, or are dentists lying about that too?
Wrong analysis. Only in countries with high fat, oils and excess animal protein consumption is there a high incidence of morbid diabetes, obesity and hypertension. Lethargy in today's post-modern world compounds this problem.
Asians and Africans have the lowest incidence of the aforementioned pathogeneses because they have the highest consumption of carbohydrates and sugar while largely abstaining from fats & meat, and their active lifestyles add to their health and wellness.
Simply brush your teeth after eating. That's what you're supposed to do after any meal. Your "sugar rots teeth" is a red herring fallacy, along with your other multiple fallacies.
The Logos have nothing to do with my point. My point was that your argument was faulty, not the conclusion. Hence why I said "disproving the argument does not mean disproving the conclusion". Learn to read.
That's because you have no understanding of The Logos, which is why you can't grasp the truth that flows from the Premise. Oh, blind one, the conclusion is given, and it most definitely supports the argument.
-
More ignorance from you. Diabetes (type 2) is caused by high fats & oil consumption.
That guy's a quack. I've known several people who reversed Type 2 Diabetes by going low carb, and it's scientifically docuмented.
-
Wrong analysis. Only in countries with high fat, oils and excess animal protein consumption is there a high incidence of morbid diabetes, obesity and hypertension. Lethargy in today's post-modern world compounds this problem.
Asians and Africans have the lowest incidence of the aforementioned pathogeneses because they have the highest consumption of carbohydrates and sugar while largely abstaining from fats & meat, and their active lifestyles add to their health and wellness.
Simply brush your teeth after eating. That's what you're supposed to do after any meal. Your "sugar rots teeth" is a red herring fallacy, along with your other multiple fallacies.
African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference.
That's because you have no understanding of The Logos, which is why you can't grasp the truth that flows from the Premise. The conclusion is most definitely given, oh, blind one.
Conclusions don't justify arguments. My word, a 5 year old could grasp this. If I said "My wall is blue, therefore the sky is blue." Does the fact that the conclusion is true mean that it's my wall being blue that's making the sky blue? Of course not. Does my wall being blue prove the sky is blue? Of course not. The conclusion does not prove the argument. How can you not grasp this?
-
That guy's a quack. I've known several people who reversed Type 2 Diabetes by going low carb, and it's scientifically docuмented.
He's a bona fide doctor who cites research and medical practices of other scientists and doctors before him. I've posted numerous empirical studies that support what he's says.
Low carb isn't sustainable, and it causes metabolic damage. It sooner or later increases type 2 diabetes when people primarily eat fats & oils.
-
Just in case people forgot what this thread was about - stress and OCD.
I think this thread is perfectly on point, as Quid's comments are proving that his diet choices cause stress and OCD.
-
African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference.
Most Africans, today, aren't tribesmen in the pure sense that they live in the bush and hunt with spears. They get refined food in the form of corn and rice and even refined sugar. Also, your premise that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product) is wrong. Your errors keep coming...
Conclusions don't justify arguments.
Too bad this doesn't apply to anything I wrote. A more accurate way of explaining the truth contained in my argument is "the conclusion supports the premise, because the conclusion stems from the premise".
"My wall is blue, therefore the sky is blue." [...]
Now you're comparing the color blue to The Logos. You've already established that your most elevated thinking is at a sub base level of normal humans. You don't have to keep reinforcing it. Try learning The Logos, that way you won't keep erring in using one-dimensional arguments to represent a multi-dimensional reality as to refute the very same reality.
-
I think this thread is perfectly on point, as Quid's comments are proving that his diet choices cause stress and OCD.
Nah, I'm merely correcting people who have jettisoned this thread off topic with their errors. If somebody addresses me with an error, even though it's not part of the thread's original subject matter, I'm still going to respond to them.
-
Quid, I was partially kidding. Though you do seem stressed out, I can't say it's due to diet.
-
Low carb isn't sustainable, and it causes metabolic damage. It sooner or later increases type 2 diabetes when people primarily eat fats & oils.
Sure it's sustainable ... unless you already have carb/sugar addiction. Not NO carb, but low carb. Just ask the Inuits who were initially studied by Atkins ... very little carbs in their diet yet extremely healthy.
-
Most Africans, today, aren't tribesmen in the pure sense that they live in the bush and hunt with spears. They get refined food in the form of corn and rice and even refined sugar. Also, your premise that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product) is wrong. Your errors keep coming...
That's why I said they DON'T do it moron, I was saying their eating habits aren't like yours. And I was referring to tribesmen because Africans living in wealthy urban centres aren't terribly much healthier than Westerners.
Now you're comparing the color blue to The Logos. You've already established that your most elevated thinking is at a sub base level of normal humans. You don't have to keep reinforcing it. Try learning The Logos, that way you won't keep erring in using one-dimensional arguments to represent a multi-dimensional reality as to refute the very same reality.
It's called an allegory, I was trying to make it excruciatingly simple for you.
-
That's why I said they DON'T do it moron, I was saying their eating habits aren't like yours. And I was referring to tribesmen because Africans living in wealthy urban centres aren't terribly much healthier than Westerners.
You move the goal post after being called out for your errors. You said, "African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference." THEREBY, implying that most Africans are tribesmen. I corrected you saying most Africans aren't tribesmen, and their diet is still highly refined sugar-based and carbohydrate. I further corrected your erred implication that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product). Their foods are mostly raw carbs and some bush meat. Regarding Africans living in urban areas, they have a far less incidence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension. It's the American blacks who suffer such morbidity, because their diet is mostly fried fatty foods, oils, and meats. You lose, again.
It's called an allegory, I was trying to make it excruciatingly simple for you.
A one-dimensional allegory that's misrepresentative of a multi-dimensional reality. Same failure.
-
Sure it's sustainable ... unless you already have carb/sugar addiction. Not NO carb, but low carb. Just ask the Inuits who were initially studied by Atkins ... very little carbs in their diet yet extremely healthy.
No it's not. The science and personal experience of many people prove it's not sustainable. Doctor (F)Atkins died of heart disease and obesity. His diet plan didn't work out well for him. It killed him.
There's no such thing as "sugar addiction". Another falsity.
Let's go by our own experience.
What's your body fat percentage, Ladislaus?
What's your body fat percentage, forlorn?
Let's see how well your diets are doing you. I'm not talking about brief periods where you subject yourself to calorie restriction while going keto.
Btw, there is no calorie restriction with a high carb/sugar and low fat/oils/animal protein diet. High calories still result in low body fat, especially if you're physically active. The more active, the less body fat, all other things being equal.
-
You move the goal post after being called out for your errors. You said, "African tribesmen aren't pouring white sugar onto their cereal. They eat unrefined sugar. Big difference." THEREBY, implying that most Africans are tribesmen. I corrected you saying most Africans aren't tribesmen, and their diet is still highly refined sugar-based and carbohydrate. I further corrected your erred implication that tribesmen eat cereal (a refined food product). Their foods are mostly raw carbs and some bush meat. Regarding Africans living in urban areas, they have a far less incidence of obesity, diabetes and hypertension. It's the American blacks who suffer such morbidity, because their diet is mostly fried fatty foods, oils, and meats. You lose, again.
A one-dimensional allegory that's misrepresentative of a multi-dimensional reality. Same failure.
It's incredible how much you're willing to lie to try and win a debate on theology. You're sort of missing the point there buddy. Lying about the food stuff is bad enough, but lying about theology is really really missing the point.
-
No it's not. The science and personal experience of many people prove it's not sustainable. Doctor (F)Atkins died of heart disease and obesity. His diet plan didn't work out well for him. It killed him.
There's no such thing as "sugar addiction". Another falsity.
Let's go by our own experience.
What's your body fat percentage, Ladislaus?
What's your body fat percentage, forlorn?
Let's see how well your diets are doing you. I'm not talking about brief periods where you subject yourself to calorie restriction while going keto.
Btw, there is no calorie restriction with a high carb/sugar and low fat/oils/animal protein diet. High calories still result in low body fat, especially if you're physically active. The more active, the less body fat, all other things being equal.
About 10% last I checked, that was quite a while ago. Yeah bro you got me beat I'm well impressed, except I'm not actually dieting and trying to achieve a goal. That's just what I'm naturally at eating whatever I want, and I don't claim to eat healthily at all. If you can be single-digit bf % on your diet that's great for you, but most people who are single digit bf% are bodybuilders who are eating mostly protein, so pretty much the opposite of your diet. Therefore the idea that your diet is the only way to achieve single digit bf% isn't very accurate.
If there's no such thing as a sugar addiction then what do people get addicted to in Coke? It's pretty much all sugar.
I'm interested in seeing your studies on calorie restriction not mattering for high carb diets though. People often say that weight loss/gain is just a matter of calorie in vs calorie out, and I've often distrusted that, but I've never actually seen a paper on it.
-
It's incredible how much you're willing to lie to try and win a debate on theology. You're sort of missing the point there buddy. Lying about the food stuff is bad enough, but lying about theology is really really missing the point.
Says the liar.
-
but most people who are single digit bf% are bodybuilders who are eating mostly protein, so pretty much the opposite of your diet.
Those bodybuilders are on steroids, AND they're abstaining from fats. So half of what you stated (abstaining from fats) supports my argument that a low fat diet helps keep body fat percentage low, and the other (flawed) half of your posit is their illicit practice of steroids in order to build muscle and burn more fat. That's not an affirmation of efficacy of a high animal protein diet. High testosterone burns body fat. If high animal protein, alone, was enough to build the type of muscle they wanted, they wouldn't need steroids. You lose, again.
Therefore the idea that your diet is the only way to achieve single digit bf% isn't very accurate.
It's the best way.
There are people with an abnormally high metabolism who can eat fats, oils, and excess animal protein all day long, but still keep a lean body. It's very rare. I'm not one of those persons as my opponents would like to wish because that wouldn't lend support to my promulgation of a high carb/sugar and low fat/oil/animal protein diet. The fact is I've strayed away from a high carb/sugar diet on several occasions while eating a lot more fats & animal protein, and I gained 30-35 pounds of mostly fat, all while mostly still being engaged in the same physical activities. But it wasn't a problem because each time I soon went back to a high carb/sugar and low fat/oils/animal protein diet, and I lost all of that body fat. It wasn't until I learned about the sugar studies that such diets resonated with me, although I instinctively knew about it.
If there's no such thing as a sugar addiction then what do people get addicted to in Coke? It's pretty much all sugar.
It's called addiction to caffeine. Also, there is high fructose corn syrup in soda, not regular corn syrup. The former is a destroyer. The latter is completely fine (barring any adverse effects from GMOs). You lose, again.
I'm interested in seeing your studies on calorie restriction not mattering for high carb diets though. People often say that weight loss/gain is just a matter of calorie in vs calorie out, and I've often distrusted that, but I've never actually seen a paper on it.
You and Ladislaus have already demonstrated that you don't want to know the truth. You still reject it in spite of the evidence brought to you. I've already posted vid of a doctor who cited scientists and another doctor. I've, also, posted a number of studies on a different thread that support my argument. Go look for it.
Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat. No matter how little or large the consumption. That fat is immediately stored as fat in the body. The argument that you burn fat for energy if the person restricts carbs/sugar is flawed because sugar is a far more efficient fuel for the body and brain. The physical and mental performance gains and endurance is far more from burning carbs/sugar than burning fats. The fact is it takes a lot longer to burn the fat. Example: a person on keto (high fat, low carb/sugar) diet runs at less speed and distance than a person on a high carb/sugar diet, and that person on a high fat and low carb/sugar diet will bonk ("hit the wall") much sooner than a person on a high carb/sugar and low fat diet, all while the person using the sugar as fuel isn't storing much body fat because his diet is low in it. To replenish fuel, the person simply eats more carbs/sugar. Try eating fats when you're nearing the threshold of exhaustion, and see where it gets you. Nowhere. You'll still bonk, and you'll still have body fat because the remaining fat in the body didn't get burned as fuel.
-
You and Ladislaus have already demonstrated that you don't want to know the truth. You still reject it in spite of the evidence brought to you.
Not so. I just find the evidence for the contrary opinion to be more compelling. Maybe the top doctors who represent both sides should debate.
-
Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat.
That's nonsense. So if I eat pork fat in bacon, that means I have pork fat underneath my skin? No, the body first breaks the fat down during digestion, turns it into various other compounds and then the excess is what gets converted back to human body fat.
You've just completely discredit yourself on this issue:
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html
After ingestion, lipids (dietary fats) are broken down into glycerol and smaller chain fatty acids by lipase, a pancreatic enzyme. This process is known as lipolysis. Next, these compounds are converted to triglycerides, which travel to your muscles, liver and fat tissues where they're once again broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. Some are used for energy and other biochemical processes. The excess is stored as fat in adipose tissues.
...
Contrary to popular belief, eating fat doesn't make you fat. It all comes down to your daily calorie intake. This nutrient provides 9 calories per gram. If your caloric intake exceeds your caloric expenditure, you'll end up gaining weight. However, the extra calories can just as well come from protein or carbs.
High-fat diets can actually help you lose weight as long as you stick to your daily calorie goals. Your blood lipid profile and cardiovascular health may improve too. High-carb diets, on the other hand, have been linked to a higher risk of mortality.
-
Quid, how do you explain people’s successes on the keto diet? I know someone who literally only eats meat, and fat. They lost 30lbs.
-
Quid, how do you explain people’s successes on the keto diet? I know someone who literally only eats meat, and fat. They lost 30lbs.
Yes, and I know a few people who reversed Type 2 diabetes on low-carb diets.
-
Quid, how do you explain people’s successes on the keto diet? I know someone who literally only eats meat, and fat. They lost 30lbs.
It's only temporary and it's unsustainable. They're likely calorie restricting along with it, too, which adds to the unsustainability. I've never met or seen a thin, fit person on a lifelong keto diet while remaining consistent with same diet. People on keto diets always deviate from it and they binge on carbs/sugar, while still eating fats & oils, which makes them gain more weight than their previous weight.
-
Those bodybuilders are on steroids, AND they're abstaining from fats. So half of what you stated (abstaining from fats) supports my argument that a low fat diet helps keep body fat percentage low, and the other (flawed) half of your posit is their illicit practice of steroids in order to build muscle and burn more fat. That's not an affirmation of efficacy of a high animal protein diet. High testosterone burns body fat. If high animal protein, alone, was enough to build the type of muscle they wanted, they wouldn't need steroids. You lose, again.
HBV protein is still needed to build muscle. All those "vegan bodybuilders" are still on roids as well as a million supplement tablets and soy(!) to replace the protein they're missing out on.
It's called addiction to caffeine. Also, there is high fructose corn syrup in soda, not regular corn syrup. The former is a destroyer. The latter is completely fine (barring any adverse effects from GMOs). You lose, again.
Only has high fructose corn syrup in America and a few other countries, yet addiction to Coke and similar drinks is not exclusive to them. And if sugar wasn't so addictive they wouldn't be putting it in literally everything, even things meant to be salty(like crisps and chips).
You and Ladislaus have already demonstrated that you don't want to know the truth. You still reject it in spite of the evidence brought to you. I've already posted vid of a doctor who cited scientists and another doctor. I've, also, posted a number of studies on a different thread that support my argument. Go look for it.
And there are thousands more scientists saying the exact opposite. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm asking for one study.
Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat. No matter how little or large the consumption. That fat is immediately stored as fat in the body.
False. All fat you eat is broken down. Those constituent molecules may later be reformed into fat, but that's only if they aren't used up for other purposes first.
The argument that you burn fat for energy if the person restricts carbs/sugar is flawed because sugar is a far more efficient fuel for the body and brain. The physical and mental performance gains and endurance is far more from burning carbs/sugar than burning fats. The fact is it takes a lot longer to burn the fat. Example: a person on keto (high fat, low carb/sugar) diet runs at less speed and distance than a person on a high carb/sugar diet, and that person on a high fat and low carb/sugar diet will bonk ("hit the wall") much sooner than a person on a high carb/sugar and low fat diet, all while the person using the sugar as fuel isn't storing much body fat because his diet is low in it. To replenish fuel, the person simply eats more carbs/sugar. Try eating fats when you're nearing the threshold of exhaustion, and see where it gets you. Nowhere. You'll still bonk, and you'll still have body fat because the remaining fat in the body didn't get burned as fuel.
Yes sugar is more efficient fuel, but that also means it takes less effort from your body to break it down. So your body expends less energy digesting it and also the energy from the sugar is gotten immediately instead of being slowly released over a longer period of time as with more complex carbs and other biomolecules, meaning you get a quick rush that fades quickly. Not to be confused with being "hyper" which is myth.
Well no shit carbs are better for energy. That is their entire purpose, their niche. It's like me saying protein is much better for growth/repair of muscles than carbs. Well, uh, no shit. They teach that to 6 year olds. So you need both.
-
That's nonsense. So if I eat pork fat in bacon, that means I have pork fat underneath my skin? No, the body first breaks the fat down during digestion, turns it into various other compounds and then the excess is what gets converted back to human body fat.
You've just completely discredit yourself on this issue:
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html
Tell me something I don't already know. I explained it in a way the average layperson can understand it. The concept is still the same but in colloquial terms. The exact science isn't necessary to explain to people who lack the background. Now, you're grasping at straws to try to discredit me because you have no real argument to validate your overweight lifestyle.
-
Tell me something I don't already know. I explained it in a way the average layperson can understand it. The concept is still the same but in colloquial terms. The exact science isn't necessary to explain to people who lack the background. Now, you're grasping at straws to try to discredit me because you have no real argument to validate your overweight lifestyle.
What you said wasn't a "simplification", it was a blatant lie. Saying the fat is immediately stored at fat in the body is just not true and would mean that all the fat you eat you gain as fat. Just complete nonsense. Even if you were completely sedentary you still would only rebuild a tiny fraction of the fat you consumed and broke down, and if you were active you'd rebuild next to none of it.
What you said wasn't even any quicker or simpler either, so clearly you're just backtracking to avoid admitting you were wrong.
-
HBV protein is still needed to build muscle. All those "vegan bodybuilders" are still on roids as well as a million supplement tablets and soy(!) to replace the protein they're missing out on.
Red herring fallacy
Only has high fructose corn syrup in America and a few other countries, yet addiction to Coke and similar drinks is not exclusive to them. And if sugar wasn't so addictive they wouldn't be putting it in literally everything, even things meant to be salty(like crisps and chips).
Learn to read. I said the addiction is to caffeine. I only added the big difference between HFCS and regular corn syrup to highlight the former is harmful while the latter is safe.
And there are thousands more scientists saying the exact opposite.
Says the guy who hasn't posted one empirical study thus far, and who ignores the fact that modern "science" in the West is largely fraudulent these days.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm asking for one study.
I already posted the vid of a real doctor citing another scientist and another doctor. Here's another thread I posted with numerous, solid, real empirical studies:
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/
False. All fat you eat is broken down. Those constituent molecules may later be reformed into fat, but that's only if they aren't used up for other purposes first.
The point is that fat still gets stored as fat. The intermediate process in academic. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.
Yes sugar is more efficient fuel, but that also means it takes less effort from your body to break it down. So your body expends less energy digesting it
That's a good thing. Thanks for supporting my argument, again.
and also the energy from the sugar is gotten immediately instead of being slowly released over a longer period of time as with more complex carbs and other biomolecules, meaning you get a quick rush that fades quickly.
I never talked against complex carbs. When I mentioned carbs, I mean both complex and simple carbs. Learn how to read and use inference reasoning.
Well no shit carbs are better for energy. That is their entire purpose, their niche.
Thanks for supporting one of my arguments, again. Keep going, brah. You're getting there.
Saying the fat is immediately stored at fat in the body is just not true and would mean that all the fat you eat you gain as fat. Just complete nonsense.
It's simple. The fat that you eat, you will wear that fat because it gets stored as fat in the body once it's digested. You wear the fat that you eat, brah.
Even if you were completely sedentary you still would only rebuild a tiny fraction of the fat you consumed and broke down, and if you were active you'd rebuild next to none of it.
Patently false. While eating a fatty diet, the more sedentary the person, the fatter they become...
Sedentary lifestyle and a high fat diet is the quickest road to obesity, diabetes, and stroke & heart disease.
-
Red herring fallacy
You were implying carbs can replace protein. They cannot. Once again you go off topic, make a completely false statement, get corrected, and then yell "red herring" so you can just ignore the correction.
Learn to read. I said the addiction is to caffeine. I only added the big difference between HFCS and regular corn syrup to highlight the former is harmful while the latter is safe.
says the guy who hasn't posted one empirical study thus far, and who ignores the fact that modern "science" in the West is largely fraudulent these days.
What's wrong with fructose anyway, I thought you were pro-sugar?
I already posted the vid of a real doctor citing another scientist and another doctor.
Yes so all science in the West is fraudulent except the two doctors(one of whom is a Jєω) in your video. And neither of them addressed the point about calorie restriction not being necessary in high carb/low fat diets.
Here's another thread I posted with numerous, solid, real empirical studies:
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/
The word calorie is not even mentioned once in any of those studies. I asked for the calorie study in perfectly good faith, saying I actually agreed with you there but I wanted to see what proof you'd found. And now you're just trying to waste my time with unrelated links in the hope I forget about the whole thing. Why, did you forget you never had proof? If you do, then post it.
The point is that fat still gets stored as fat. The intermediate process in academic. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.
Again, false. Fat just provide components which CAN be used to make new fats in the body. You don't have to eat fats for your body to make fat. Again, you make a completely false statement and then backtrack without admitting it.
That's a good thing. Thanks for supporting my argument, again.
Burning less calories is not a good thing if losing weight or maintaining a low weight is what you're after.
Thanks for supporting one of my arguments, again. Keep going, brah. You're getting there.
Pity you couldn't even finish the paragraph. The release of energy is not the only thing your body needs food for, dingus. Carbs are also better at providing energy than water, do you stop drinking water too?
-
Bodybuilders literally do not touch fat.... I’d suggest you guys watch the generation iron docuмentaries.
-
Bodybuilders literally do not touch fat.... I’d suggest you guys watch the generation iron docuмentaries.
Yes it's a well known fact that fat doesn't build muscle, which is all they care about. They don't go around stuffing their faces with carbs and sugar either. They eat pure protein, and any food you find protein in will have a lot more fat than carbs btw.
-
Right, I should have mentioned that. They would literally die before ruining their chances at Mr. Olympia. Ronnie Coleman’s docuмentary was pretty cool, but the generation iron 1,2, and 3 talk more about their diets.
-
Patently false. While eating a fatty diet, the more sedentary the person, the fatter they become...
Sedentary lifestyle and a high fat diet is the quickest road to obesity, diabetes, and stroke & heart disease.
Someone has clearly never heard of the concept of "percentages". A small percentage of a huge amount can still be quite a lot, dingus. If you put on every ounce of fat you ate you could gain pounds in a day if you tried hard enough. That's just physically not possible.
-
You were implying carbs can replace protein. They cannot.
No I wasn't. Another strawman fallacy by you.
Once again you go off topic, make a completely false statement, get corrected, and then yell "red herring" so you can just ignore the correction.
You're lying, again, and then you accuse me of doing the very thing of which you're guilty.
What's wrong with fructose anyway, I thought you were pro-sugar?
I never said anything bad about fructose.
The word calorie is not even mentioned once in any of those studies. I asked for the calorie study in perfectly good faith, saying I actually agreed with you there but I wanted to see what proof you'd found.
You're lying, again. You never read the studies in that thread. You'd still be reading them if you honestly sought the truth. You're simply trolling because you have low self esteem about your own fitness level. LOL
Fat just provide components which CAN be used to make new fats in the body.
Fat will cause a person to store fat in much higher quantities than any other nutrient. It's very difficult to burn it off because people don't have the energy to sustain the expenditure of fat for energy. Keto diets = low energy.
You don't have to eat fats for your body to make fat. Again, you make a completely false statement and then backtrack without admitting it.
Another strawman argument. I never said such thing.
Burning less calories is not a good thing if losing weight or maintaining a low weight is what you're after.
I never said otherwise. Do you know how to read, or are you being flat out dishonest with strawman argumentation?
Pity you couldn't finish the paragraph. The release of energy is not the only thing your body needs food for, dingus. Carbs are also better at providing energy than water, do you stop drinking water too?
Pity you couldn't refrain from a Begging The Question Fallacy. You lose, again.
-
Another strawman argument. I never said such thing.
You said fats are immediately stored as fat. Blatant lie. Then after you got corrected, you claimed that you wear the fat you eat, another lie. Then I explained basic percentages to you and how other food types can also be made as fats, and now you realise you can't even lie again to get yourself out of this one so you just "nuh uh!" as usual.
I never said otherwise. Do you know how to read, or are you being flat out dishonest with strawman argumentation?
You said burning less calories on digesting it was a good thing. Anyone can scroll up and see this.
And asking a question is not the begging the question fallacy. I really can't be bothered responding to any more of your posts when the very first line of substance you gave, after all the "nuh uhs!" as is standard for your posts, was a complete and blatant lie.
I said that none of your studies mentioned the word calorie, an objective fact. And you go "nuh uh". You can check your own thread moron, see for yourself that I already know your own studies better than you. I asked you for a study showing how calorie restriction didn't matter on a high carb diet, you provided me with a list of studies where NOT A SINGLE ONE even mentioned the word calorie, and now because you're too lazy or perhaps too ill-willed to check your own thread and correct yourself, you're just denying an objective, verifiable fact. Anyone here can click into your thread and cntrl + f calorie to quickly check for themselves and see you're a blatant liar. Not worth the time arguing with obstinate ignorants who spit on the truth. Despicable.
-
Bodybuilders literally do not touch fat.... I’d suggest you guys watch the generation iron docuмentaries.
I know. They use testosterone to not only build muscle, but to burn existing fat. Testosterone burns fat. If animal protein was enough to build muscle to the level they seek, they would still use testosterone to burn fat.
-
I know. They use testosterone to not only build muscle, but to burn existing fat. Testosterone burns fat. If animal protein was enough to build muscle to the level they seek, they would still use testosterone to burn fat.
No one said animal protein is all they use, but they still need it and a metric shitton of it. You can't build muscle on a low protein diet, that's a fact.
-
Asking a question is not the begging the question fallacy.
You demonstrate more ignorance. Here you go, learn something since you refuse to learn about The Logos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
No one said animal protein is all they use,
I never said anyone made that argument. You're committing another strawman by accusing me of a strawman. Your brain must be low on glucose. You're not too bright.
I really can't be bothered responding to the rest when the very first line of substance you gave, after all the "nuh uhs!"
This is code for conceding to the fact that you have no real argument, and your illogical thought processes have been called out ad astra.
as is standard for your posts, was a complete and blatant lie.
The Accuser projecting his own guilt.
I said that none of your studies mentioned the word calorie, an objective fact. And you go "nuh uh". You can check your own thread moron, see for yourself that I already know your own studies better than you. I asked you for a study showing how calorie restriction didn't matter on a high carb diet, you provided me with a list of studies where NOT A SINGLE ONE even mentioned the word calorie, and now because you're too lazy or perhaps too ill-willed to check your own thread and correct yourself, you're just denying an objective, verifiable fact. Anyone here can click into your thread and cntrl + f calorie to quickly check for themselves and see you're a blatant liar. Not worth the time arguing with obstinate ignorants who spit on the truth. Despicable.
LOL... so you're basically admitting that 1) you don't know how to read, or 2) you're too lazy to read the given citations, or 3) you fear the truth and being proven wrong, again, or 4) all of the above.
Have some sugar. It'll improve your mood and energy. As for your lack of honesty, you need self-reflection and effort as a start to honesty... Good luck.
-
You demonstrate more ignorance. Here you go, learn something since you refuse to learn about The Logos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Once again proving you can't even read your own links. It clearly says begging the question is assuming the conclusion is true to prove the argument is true, i.e what you did earlier in the whole Christ is Catholic debate. Asking you if you thought water is necessary to drink is not begging the question. Nowhere on that page does it say asking someone a rhetorical question to show the idiocy of their argument is begging the question.
This is code for conceding to the fact that you have no real argument, and your illogical thought processes have been called out ad astra.
I responded to everything you've already said, but I don't want to continue to argue with someone who's willing to blatantly lie.
The Accuser projecting his own guilt.
And yet you've been unable to point out a single lie of mine.
LOL... so you're basically admitting that 1) you don't know how to read, or 2) you're too lazy to read the given citations, or 3) you fear the truth and being proven wrong, again, or 4) all of the above.
Have some sugar. It'll improve your mood and energy. As for your lack of honesty, you need self-reflection and effort as a start to honesty... Good luck.
I don't see what you're trying to do here. You're not fooling anybody. Everyone can click on your link and see that there is no mention of calories. Who are you even trying to fool by insisting on a lie that everyone can fact-check?
-
Once again proving you can't even read your own links. It clearly says begging the question is assuming the premise is true because the conclusion is true,
Exactly. That's what you're guilty of doing, not the question itself. Your skull is real dense, ain't it?
i.e what you did earlier in the whole Christ is Catholic debate.
No. Your claim that my "conclusion didn't justify the premise" was completely refuted because I showed the premise supports the conclusion, and then you proceeded to make red herring fallacies and not contesting anything specific about my argument (because you know you'd keep losing). Btw, AGAIN, you show ignorance, for your quote above has Begging The Question backwards. LOL. You lose, again. LOLOL
I responded to everything you've already said, but I don't want to continue to argue with someone who's willing to blatantly lie.
You responded with logical fallacies, lies and moving the goal post. Fail, fail, and fail.
And yet you've been unable to point out a single lie of mine.
You've been shown it many times. You're simply lying, again, or you're severely deluded.
I don't see what you're trying to do here. You're not fooling anybody. Everyone can click on your link and see that there is no mention of calories. Who are you even trying to fool by insisting on a lie that everyone can fact-check?
Don't be lazy, or is it that you really lack reading comprehension? Read those scientific studies, and see for yourself, boy. Get to work.
-
The release of energy is not the only thing your body needs food for, dingus. Carbs are also better at providing energy than water, do you stop drinking water too?
I want to point out ANOTHER logical fallacy here. Water doesn't cause a person to get fat. People can drink as much water with electrolytes as they want, and they won't gain a nano particle of fat on them because of it. Fat causes fat. Water simply rehydrates.
NNNNNNNNNNNEXT !!
-
I want to point out ANOTHER logical fallacy here. Water doesn't cause a person to get fat. People can drink as much water with electrolytes as they want, and they won't gain a nano particle of fat on them. Fat causes fat. Water simply hydrates.
NNNNNNNNNNNEXT !!
Not a fallacy moron, my point was that your body need things other than energy, so your assertion that you only needed carbs since carbs are the best at providing energy is wrong. Your reading comprehension really is non-existent.
Now to quickly remind everyone, here's the list of studies he linked earlier: https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/)
Just so you can see for yourselves that the word calorie isn't even mentioned once, as he's blatantly lied about multiple times now.
-
Not a fallacy moron, my point was that your body need things other than energy
Nope. Admit it. You illogically compared water to fat. Water doesn't cause fat deposits in the body and morbid diseases (barring legionaire's disease, hepatitis, etc), but fat does, indeed, cause it. Fat consumption causes fatty deposits in cells. Water simply rehydrates the body. A person can drink 100 gallons of water and not gain a nano shred of fat, but he can eat one bite of a taco with meat and cheese oily sauces, and fat will deposit in his body. Water is necessary for survival, and frequent consumption of water is necessary for normal human physiology. A person can abstain from fat and still live, because fat synthesis still occurs and even fruits and veggies can have enough of it to suffice for the body.
so your assertion that you only needed carbs since carbs are the best at providing energy is wrong.
Another strawman. An 80% to 90% carb/sugar diet isn't an "only carb" diet.
Your reading comprehension really is non-existent.
The Accuser projecting his own faults. What a shame.
Now to quickly remind everyone, here's the list of studies he linked earlier: https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/)
Just so you can see for yourselves that the word calorie isn't even mentioned once, as he's blatantly lied about multiple times now.
Yes, I invite everyone to read those splendid scientific studies. I have more, too.
-
Nope. Admit it. You illogically compared water to fat. Water doesn't cause fat deposits in the body and morbid diseases (barring legionaire's disease, hepatitis, etc), but fat does, indeed, cause it. Fat consumption causes fatty deposits in cells. Water simply rehydrates the body. A person can drink 100 gallons of water and not gain a nano shred of fat, but he can eat one bite of a taco with meat and cheese oily sauces, and fat will deposit in his body. Water is necessary for survival, and frequent consumption of water is necessary for normal human physiology. A person can abstain from fat and still live, because fat synthesis still occurs and even fruits and veggies can have enough of it to suffice for the body.
I never even used the word "fat" in that paragraph, nice try though buddy. Here's what I said:
"The release of energy is not the only thing your body needs food for, dingus. Carbs are also better at providing energy than water, do you stop drinking water too?"
To anyone who's even mildly literate, it's clear my point is that the release of energy is not the only thing your body needs, in fact I explicitly stated that. And I never even mentioned the word fat. Yet you conjure up this mystical comparison to fat in your head to make yet another useless strawman argument, like the idiotic liar you are.
And it still astounds me how you're such a cynical liar that you can't even cntrl + f your own studies and admit none of them are about calories at all.
-
Gaining weight has nothing to do with fat. It's about calories. You have to eat less fat by weight since fat is more calorie-dense than carbs or proteins, having 9 calories per gram, whereas carbs and protein both have 4.
If you do not have a calorie surplus, you will no gain weight ... regardless of the macro-nutrient breakdown. This has been repeatedly proven scientifically.
And, no, you won't gain weight if all you eat is sugar. But eating nothing but sugar wreak havoc on the insulin system ... unless you were to REALLY spread it out, say eating one teaspoon of sugar every 15 minutes throughout the day.
-
Were Trads as obsessed with diet and body weight back in the 1980s and 1990s?
I don't remember ever hearing a discussion about diet in the SSPX tea room.
I was super fit in those days and running 31 mins for 10,000 and sub 2.30 marathons.
Frankly, given the state of the world, I am more than a little surprised at how many of you want to prolong your stay in it.
I would be happy to pop my clogs at 70 and leave the fαɢɢօts and fools to their fates. Especially if I get the luxury and convenience of eating tasty food between now and the day I die.
-
Were Trads as obsessed with diet and body weight back in the 1980s and 1990s?
I don't remember ever hearing a discussion about diet in the SSPX tea room.
I was super fit in those days and running 31 mins for 10,000 and sub 2.30 marathons.
Well, I didn't think much about it until I hit 40 and felt that my energy levels were dropping, interfering with my ability to keep up with my duties of state.
-
I never even used the word "fat" in that paragraph, nice try though buddy. Here's what I said:
Moving the goal post again. Anyone with inference reasoning can see you implied that fat is needed to be consumed, just like water, since my premise (which I've backed with many scientific studies) is a high carb/sugar and low FAT/oils/animal protein diet is the most healthy.
it's clear my point is that the release of energy is not the only thing your body needs, in fact I explicitly stated that.
I never stated it was ... Another strawman by you, and an irrelevant point to boot.
like the idiotic liar you are.
Another effeminate outburst and projecting your own guilt of lying - all wrapped up into one.
And it still astounds me how you're such a cynical liar that you can't even cntrl + f your own studies and admit none of them are about calories at all.
Learn to read
-
My advice having observed the young adults around me and 30 years since is to start getting a plan together now.
OCD has advantages in certain jobs such as data analyst, data science, risk manager, data audit and data curator and handling and manipulating data (loosely called Big Data). This is where the largest growth in well paid white collar jobs will be over the next few years. I jumped to this sector 11 years ago because I was listening for the early signals of where the next gold rush was coming from. Prior to that I sold trading/risk systems to banks and hedge funds, but the 2008 crash put the dampers on that market. There's still money to be made, but only 50-60% of the gold rush days of the 90s and 00s
I only have 1 real skill in life and that is being an efficient leech and bandwagon rider. I get in on trends early, build up a network of contacts and milk it for all it is worth. I have a nose for what the next big thing is and can smell the money rushing in from investment funds and private equity. Booming industries have HUGE amounts of money sloshing around in them and everything, wages, conference prices, contractor rates all boom as a result. It's difficult to avoid some of that money sticking to you.
Ride a 20 year wave and you can own a $1m house by 40 years old outright just by being an employee. Then with no mortgage and two paid for cars in the drive, you can downsize/backpedal.
Data is the new oil and millions and millions of new jobs will be created in almost every company in the world. Other jobs are going to disappear or reduce to 10% of what they were as robots take over those roles (call centre operator, bookkeeper, financial trader/broker, clerks, low-level accounts). But data jobs are going to boom over the next 20 years. These jobs require a VERY in-depth interest in some pretty esoteric data sets (and if your social skills are lacking that is no disadvantage). Once you deeply understand the data set and understand data quality and completeness you are extremely difficult to replace and therefore your salary tends to outpace wage inflation as firms compete for staff.
Ask the adults around you who know you and those whom you trust to suggest what they think your aptitudes and skills might be. The write to independent professionals and in a humble and polite way ask them for their experience of the career and to tell you the ups and downs. You might be surprised how many people are happy to help if you ask in the right way. Ask strangers not friends as they are more likely to tell you the unvarnished truth about the pros and cons of the sector. Matthew for example could tell you about the realities of being a developer and working from home, the taxes, the problems of working on your own, etc.
Nowadays, it is more important that ever to pick a career path and stick to it. If you decide to become a computer programmer at 40 or change from computer programming to sales and marketing or sales and marketing to running a logistics company then be prepared to take a big cut in salary and climb the greasy pole again. In your 20s you have a lot of ambition and energy but few unique skills and little to contribute. By your 40s you need to have those skills established (by reputation as much as reality) so you can back pedal in your late 40s and 50s when you are lacking in energy. Moreover by your 40s and 50s you are in the middle of raising a large Catholic family (unavoidable if your wife isn't contracepting) so you need to be able to back-pedal a bit to spend the time with your half-dozen to one-dozen children to make sure they get the skills in life to not be dropouts and basement dwellers.
Pick once, pick wisely and throw yourself at it five or six days per week. If you are really busy with work and learning useful commercial skills you should find that the other problems handle themselves. Women will find you if they know you are earning more than the other young men on their radar. If at 26 you decide to try a vocation, then you can afford to take a couple of years out, fund yourself and come back to your career at 28.
If university is free in Denmark and you are smart enough, then go and do something sensible like a STEM subject. Otherwise get into the world of work. In truth for most jobs, most employers don't care much about university degrees. They want reliable employees who turn up and get the job done. I am regularly in Copenhagen, Arhus and Esbjerg so I know what the local jobs scene is like for the banking, insurance and telco (mobile) sectors.
You also have to think of a job that 1 billion Indians and 1.3 billion Chinese cannot easily do in the next 20 years. Because the internet makes them cheaper to employ and companies are always going to watch their bottom line. No Ching-Chong is going to be able to sell a large AI system to a bank, because those are sold in English and will continue to be. An Indian might be able to sell a system, but generally speaking the smaller vendors who sell cutting edge technology are not based out of India and frankly the number of Indians who are westernised enough to do business with western run companies are fairly few and they are usually working for those companies and selling THEIR stuff to India. The vast majority of Indians are peasants. Some of them well educated, but with a peasant mindset.
What about being a YouTube celery or starting a blog, you can make hundreds of thousands, even millions, from home and never having a boss.
On a more serious note, I hear digital marketing is also another area where there’s a lot of demand and people get paid well.
-
If you do not have a calorie surplus, you will no gain weight ... regardless of the macro-nutrient breakdown. This has been repeatedly proven scientifically.
You will become what's called "skinny fat", because the body will still deposit fats, even if weight isn't gained (which means muscle is shrinking because of a sedentary lifestyle. Muscle weighs more than fat). An active lifestyle can't be sustained on a primary high fat - low carb/sugar diet.
But eating nothing but sugar wreak havoc on the insulin system ... unless you were to REALLY spread it out, say eating one teaspoon of sugar every 15 minutes throughout the day.
This is wrong. It's conventional wisdom (conventional lies) perpetuated by the medical, meat and dairy industries for decades upon decades. Sugar, and low fat, diet increases insulin sensitivity, thereby, less insulin is needed in the body. Insulin levels are low. Conversely, a high fat diet paralyzes insulin receptors by covering them, thus, the body compensates with far higher levels of insulin. Bodies with diets high in fats and low in sugar still produce insulin, and it becomes overloaded with it because fat causes insulin restriction, so the insulin is trapped and causes damage to cells.
-
Moving the goal post again. Anyone with inference reasoning can see you implied that fat is needed to be consumed, just like water, since my premise (which I've backed with many scientific studies) is a high carb/sugar and low FAT/oils/animal protein diet is the most healthy.
Good job! You're finally getting it! You suggested that fats are unnecessary because carbs are better at providing energy, and I gave water as an example that we need to consume things for reasons other than providing energy, to show how your line of thinking was fallacious. That does not mean that fats or water are the same or serve the same role, as you were implying I claimed.
I never stated it was ... Another strawman by you, and an irrelevant point to boot.
Do I really have to repeat your own comments back to you? I said carbs are better at providing energy than fats, and then you said that was proof that people don't need fats. So I responded saying that energy is not the only thing we need food for, meaning that fat's inefficiency at providing energy does not make it useless.
Another effeminate outburst and projecting your own guilt of lying - all wrapped up into one.
I just linked undeniable proof of you lying, whereas you still haven't cited a single example of me lying. Nice try though.
Learn to read
(https://i.gyazo.com/1711e92a69a6380d63d75ca3f3eccc40.png)
You conveniently quoted all your studies, so it's very easy to see that the word calorie is not mentioned in a single one of them contrary to your claims. Showing once again that you're an ill-willed liar.
-
Good job! You're finally getting it! You suggested that fats are unnecessary because carbs are better at providing energy, and I gave water as an example that we need to consume things for reasons other than providing energy, to show how your line of thinking was fallacious. That does not mean that fats or water are the same or serve the same role, as you were implying I claimed.
It's still an illogical comparison because water consumption is essential to the body in much higher quantities than fat consumption. The latter actually causes morbidity. Oh, obtuse one.
and then you said that was proof that people don't need fats.
Not for energy metabolism, but it's necessary for other functions and getting it in small amounts from veggies and fruits is enough.
meaning that fat's inefficiency at providing energy does not make it useless.
I never said it was useless. I said it's unnecessary for energy metabolism. And fats can be acquired in low amounts from low fat veggies & fruits and still be beneficial to the body in other ways.
I just linked undeniable proof of you lying, whereas you still haven't cited a single example of me lying. Nice try though.
(https://i.gyazo.com/1711e92a69a6380d63d75ca3f3eccc40.png)
You conveniently quoted all your studies, so it's very easy to see that the word calorie is not mentioned in a single one of them contrary to your claims. Showing once again that you're an ill-willed liar.
Learn to read, brah. Again, I invite everyone else to read those pulchritudinous studies. Most edifying for anyone who wants the truth, even if it shatters their existing false paradigm.
-
Having only skimmed the first few pages of this thread......I used to have a guy that worked for me who was big time OCD, he was about 50 years old and was a strict vegetarian for 30 years. Best dam worker I ever had, talk about being detail oriented and doing his job quickly and correctly *every* time, well, that was him. Of course, he would go into 'crying little girl mode' when something happened to disrupt his "rhythm" so to speak, but he was the best dam worker I ever saw.
He's 68 now and the last I heard a few months ago, he started eating meat a few years ago, even indulges in junk food now - but as far as his OCD is concerned, nothing has changed, he's still just as OCD as he ever was.
Carry on. :cheers:
-
People with "OCD" simply need a good whoopin' and/or to humble themselves before God.
-
People with "OCD" simply need a good whoopin' and/or to humble themselves before God.
It'll snap them out of it.
-
Having only skimmed the first few pages of this thread......I used to have a guy that worked for me who was big time OCD, he was about 50 years old and was a strict vegetarian for 30 years. Best dam worker I ever had, talk about being detail oriented and doing his job quickly and correctly *every* time, well, that was him. Of course, he would go into 'crying little girl mode' when something happened to disrupt his "rhythm" so to speak, but he was the best dam worker I ever saw.
He's 68 now and the last I heard a few months ago, he started eating meat a few years ago, even indulges in junk food now - but as far as his OCD is concerned, nothing has changed, he's still just as OCD as he ever was.
Carry on. :cheers:
What was his job.
-
Although never diagnosed, my father certainly has OCD/autistic traits. He's a retired physicist, age 90. He has lost some of his intellectual sharpness, but he's still a stickler for routine and detail. In 1990, or thereabouts, he took it upon himself to clean out and organize a huge storage room at the laboratory where he worked. It was not his job description, but it's constant state of chaos and disorder interfered with his work. His assistants would take days sometimes to find necessary equipment. Sometimes it would be located eventually in a building two miles away. In the meantime, he'd gone ahead and ordered a replacement. About a year ago, he received a call from the lab because an experimenter was looking for a hand-tooled mirror, made especially for a beam separator in a 1968. A man who remembered him from his younger days said that if anyone knew if the mirror still existed and where to find, it would be Dr. M., if still living! My father knew where the mirror was, in 1990! They looked, and sure enough, exactly where he'd stored it all those years ago!
-
Although never diagnosed, my father certainly has OCD/autistic traits. He's a retired physicist, age 90. He has lost some of his intellectual sharpness, but he's still a stickler for routine and detail. In 1990, or thereabouts, he took it upon himself to clean out and organize a huge storage room at the laboratory where he worked. It was not his job description, but it's constant state of chaos and disorder interfered with his work. His assistants would take days sometimes to find necessary equipment. Sometimes it would be located eventually in a building two miles away. In the meantime, he'd gone ahead and ordered a replacement. About a year ago, he received a call from the lab because an experimenter was looking for a hand-tooled mirror, made especially for a beam separator in a 1968. A man who remembered him from his younger days said that if anyone knew if the mirror still existed and where to find, it would be Dr. M., if still living! My father knew where the mirror was, in 1990! They looked, and sure enough, exactly where he'd stored it all those years ago!
That's not "OCD", nor are those traits of it. That's a man who was very well-organized, grabbed the bull by the nutsack, seized the day, and has a great memory.
-
What about being a YouTube celery or starting a blog, you can make hundreds of thousands, even millions, from home and never having a boss.
On a more serious note, I hear digital marketing is also another area where there’s a lot of demand and people get paid well.
My brother lives in a home worth 1.3 million, has 11 children, paid his mortgage off by 40. Never owned a business, never inherited much money.
Left university at 21, ordinary career as a software programmer. He had just never been unemployed and lives a fairly frugal life. But they go on EU holidays every 3 years.
He would have earned a lot more if he had been career minded, but he was just a reliable worker who did his job. People understimate the compound power of 20 years of earning and saving and not having periods of unemployment, failed businesses, bankruptcy and divorce. Eventually he was made redundant around the age of 50, his department outsourced to India, got a big check (but he had paid his mortgage off by then anyway) and then found a new job in a new field after 2 to 3 month. Had to learn Java and cloud software development from scratch. But with the work discipline he had from all those years of plugging away, by month six he won employee of the month.
There are so many screwed up people in the work today with addictions, psycho problems and personal life problems that just being Mr. Stable and getting your job done with enthusiam and hard work puts you ahead of the pack in many offices. Number 1 compliant I hear from business owners? "We just cannot hire enough decent staff". 20% do 80% of the work.
If you are low risk, and he is, it is a way to be financially stable and comfortable at 45. I took a riskier path myself but I am a gambler.
His daughter is a YouTuber. She is married with kids now but she made very good money on YouTube doing makeup tutorials.
Digital marketing is just marketing using social media and web advertising. I reckon that aside from human data analysts and salespeople who follow up the leads generated, plus professional proposal writers who can cutomize the proposal text to the readers skill level, a software robot can perform the actual marketing tasks much better. So net jobs in marketing will probably drop.
Data jobs and data science and the tech around that will be the boom industry for white collar jobs. Like getting into personal computers in the mid 1980s and the internet in 1993/94.
-
Digital marketing is just marketing using social media and web advertising. I reckon that aside from human data analysts and salespeople who follow up the leads generated, plus professional proposal writers who can cutomize the proposal text to the readers skill level, a software robot can perform the actual marketing tasks much better. So net jobs in marketing will probably drop.
Data jobs and data science and the tech around that will be the boom industry for white collar jobs. Like getting into personal computers in the mid 1980s and the internet in 1993/94.
You might as well say that by now robots should be able to handle all the client accounts in the CRM's in any company, but the fact is that they don't, even when such CRM management is orders of magnitude easier than managing Google ads accounts.
You can learn crm management in a couple of days, but Google ads, analytics etc. will take a while because it is a lot more complicated.
I know that recruiters in the digital marketing field say they have a hard time finding qualified people, so in many cases they will train you themselves.
There will always need to be an account manager because the business owners have no time to waste setting up and managing the accounts, much less learning the whole thing.