really?

[kylejt]

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

The fitness teacher a local high school has made that mandatory viewing in his classes. It takes with some kids, doesn't with others...similar to when they watch "Blood on the Highway" in drivers ed. They stiil feel invulnerable.

Mandatory? I know of one kid (mine) who would not be there watching such one-sided garbage.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

A Motel 6 maybe. I forgot the mention anything about cholesterol and all the grams of fat in those bad boys.

Happy Thanksgiving

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

A Motel 6 maybe. I forgot the mention anything about cholesterol and all the grams of fat in those bad boys.

Happy Thanksgiving

Hey Paul:

This warning comes up when I read your post.

The problem is the the graphic you've added.

TREND MICRO PC-cillin Internet Security 2007

Warning!!! Dangerous website

Address: http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http...prof/page.html
Type: Spyware

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Mandatory? I know of one kid (mine) who would not be there watching such one-sided garbage.

I agree. The other side needs an opportunity to be heard.

You should demand they find a film that extols the benefits of a diet excessively high in trans-fats, saturated fats, starches, high fructose corn syrup and meat filled with preservatives.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Those burgers...turn to sugar when digested by the body.

Please elaborate on this.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Please elaborate on this.

Hamburgers are mostly buns, which are made of flour, which are loaded with carbohydrates, which breaks down into sugar, which turns into fat. The meat has more than enough fat grams, so that should be obvious.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Mandatory? I know of one kid (mine) who would not be there watching such one-sided garbage.

It's part of the curriculum. A quiz follows.

Under the district guidelines there is no reason for a parent to opt their kids out. There is no sexual or religious content. It would be like trying to opt out of a video on Copernicus and his contributions during a physics class,

[canadaump6]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It's part of the curriculum. A quiz follows.

Under the district guidelines there is no reason for a parent to opt their kids out. There is no sexual or religious content. It would be like trying to opt out of a video on Copernicus and his contributions during a physics class,

My father, a retired high school English teacher and former department head, would be infuriated to hear that a teacher is wasting two hours of class time to show a video that contributes almost nothing to a student's education. Students aren't going to learn from the movie and chances are they've already seen it in theatres when it was released. The teacher gives out a quiz at the end of the movie to justify the 2 hours he has wasted. Whatever happened to giving a lecture? I'm sure it would contain more material than a movie meant solely to bring in money. However, I would be willing to guess that students love this teacher, but only because he doesn't make them do anything.

[JJ]

[QUOTE=Steven Tyler]Hamburgers are mostly buns, QUOTE]

Are steaks mostly dinner rolls? What if I don't eat the buns (or dinner rolls)? Would a DOUBLE cheeseburger be better for me than a single?

JJ

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

It's part of the curriculum. A quiz follows.

Under the district guidelines there is no reason for a parent to opt their kids out. There is no sexual or religious content. It would be like trying to opt out of a video on Copernicus and his contributions during a physics class,

Al Gore's movie is probably on the curriculum, too.

And I would fight these battles openly and publicly. And mock the teacher for wasting 2 hours on a propganda, muck-raking film that is only considered a documentary because Hollywood loves bashing corporate America.

McDonald's offers healthy choices. Choices. Salads, apple dippers, yogurt, etc. Small hamburgers, chicken. We all make the choices, from the lasagna I ate last night, to the late night Taco Bell I passed on last week. I bet that message doesn't appear in the health/fitness class. It's McDonald's is EVIL and nothing more.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Al Gore's movie is probably on the curriculum, too.

I bet that message doesn't appear in the health/fitness class. It's McDonald's is EVIL and nothing more.

You'd lose that bet. The film is more about the choices most make at McDonalds and the potential consequences.

Public ecducation is about openning minds...not closing them. You may have an experience that doesn't reflect that. That's too bad. But it is not universal.

My kids were exposed to many onpions and facts with which I personally disagreed. But it taught them to examine and explore and make their own decisions.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by canadaump6

My father, a retired high school English teacher and former department head, would be infuriated to hear that a teacher is wasting two hours of class time to show a video that contributes almost nothing to a student's education. Students aren't going to learn from the movie and chances are they've already seen it in theatres when it was released. The teacher gives out a quiz at the end of the movie to justify the 2 hours he has wasted. Whatever happened to giving a lecture? I'm sure it would contain more material than a movie meant solely to bring in money. However, I would be willing to guess that students love this teacher, but only because he doesn't make them do anything.

" teacher is wasting two hours of class time to show a video that contributes almost nothing to a student's education."

And this is based on what other than your opinion? A pre and post assessment of the students measuring their understanding of the subject matter? Please share those results.

Would your father be "infuriated" that I have been know to show film versions of Romeo and Juliet after the kids have read the play? It takes a couple of hours and it gives them a better feel for the language, characters, and even humor found in the play. Or would he prefer I stand at a lecturn and just tell the students what I think?

A film and other visual education aids can contribute far more than words, no matter how fancy or dripping with latin roots. Did your father allow a chalk board in his room? Books written, published and distributed by people trying to make money? What a waste. He could have lectured.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Oh, so your nutritionist friend thinks sugar sodas are good for you? I don't think so.

I would highly recommend switching from soda with 28 to 40 grams of sugar per 8 ounce glass to sugar free soda. It has been proven to aid in weight loss to those people who are addicted to sugar sodas.

I think this is far more recommended by nutritionists and fitness experts. I don't think they endorse the "couch potato" diet in any way, shape or form.


What if I told you that very low calorie diets will actually make you fatter in the long term, and that there's an almost embarrassingly simple way that you can eat more and still burn more fat?
I know it sounds too good to be true, but you're about to see the science behind it, and I've got the real-world results to prove it, so read on.
To get rid of fat, the laws of energy balance and thermodynamics declare that you have to consume fewer calories than you burn. Sorry, there's no way around it. There's no such thing as "calories don't count." Run for cover the next time you hear that claim because it's absolutely false and any scientist will tell you that.
You must have a "calorie deficit" to burn fat off your body. However, the fatal flaw in most popular diet programs is that the calorie deficit is too aggressive or too extreme.
Have you ever been told that to get a lean body you had to eat 1200 calories a day or 1000 calories a day or even less? Did you ever just get FED UP with no results and tell yourself, "That's it, I'm hardly going to eat ANYthing," because you were desperate to get the pounds off as fast as possible?
Yeah, sure, it works in the beginning, because there's a HUGE calorie deficit at first, but there's also a HUGE irony:
When you cut your calories too far, eventually YOUR BODY ADAPTS.
If you're a Star Trek fan, it's kind of like the BORG, where a phaser weapon works against the alien BORG creatures once, but then they adapt, and soon the same phaser blast no longer does anything.
Well, diets are kind of like that, aren't they?
You "fire" a low calorie diet at your body and it zaps off some weight in the beginning. But then your body figures out what's going on. Your body doesn't care that you want to look good in a swimsuit; your body thinks you're under attack! Your body thinks you're about to starve to death!
When you fire something extreme at your body (like hardly eating), your metabolic rate slows down in order to protect you.
This "defense mechanism" is often called, "the starvation response."
When you go into starvation mode, here are some of the consequences:
1. Your body releases fewer fat-releasing and fat-burning enzymes such as hormone sensitive lipase and lipoprotein lipase.
2. Your fat cells release less of the hormone leptin, which is the signal that tells your brain you are well fed and not starving (it's the "anti-starvation" hormone)
3. Fat burning hormones crash, including your levels of T3 (no, not the latest Arnold terminator movie, T3 is the active form of thyroid hormone, the important "metabolism-regulating hormone" that you've probably heard about before).
4. You lose muscle. Muscle is metabolically-active tissue, which means it takes a lot of energy just to keep it. When you're "starving," you're in an "energy crisis", so excess muscle is the LAST thing you need. Muscle becomes expendable, and your body cannibalizes your own lean tissue.
5. Appetite hormones rage out of control. When you're starving, a part of your brain called the hypothalamus switches into high gear and flips the appetite switch, sometimes to the point where you become ravenous and cannot fight these physiological cravings with willpower.
Bottom line: It's hormonally, metabolically and physiologically impossible to achieve permanent fat loss by starving yourself.
And that's the first BIG LIE:
Any program that's extremely low in calories may work in the short term, but the "honeymoon" never lasts for long.
In the long run, very low calorie diets can actually make you fatter. Eventually, they lead to binge eating and weight re-gain and you end up with less muscle and a slower metabolism than when you started.
The TRUTH is, you DON'T have to starve yourself to get a lean body. In fact, you can eat more and burn more fat.
Here's how:
1. Avoid very low calorie diets.
Before going on any diet, look at the recommended calories. You'll probably discover that in most cases, you are required to slash your calories to "starvation" levels (1200 or less for women, 1800 or less for men, and active people need even more.
2. Make sure your calorie intake is customized.
Depending on your activity level, age and gender, your calorie needs may be much higher or much lower than the average person. If a diet program recommends the same amount of calories for everyone, that should be a red flag to stay away. It could be perfect for someone else, but starvation level for you.
3. Decrease your calories just a little below maintenance.
Decrease your calories conservatively - only about 20% below your daily maintenance level. A mild calorie cut doesn't trigger the starvation response as much.
For example: If you're female and you maintain your weight on 2150 calories per day, a 20% deficit is 1720 calories per day (correct). Conventional diets might have you slash to 1000 or 1200 calories per day or less without emphasis on exercise (incorrect)
4. Increase your calorie deficit more by increasing activity
If you only cut calories slightly below maintenance, then how do you reduce body fat without the process taking forever? Simple, you BURN more calories and increase your deficit by increasing your activity. (No brainer simple!)
First, if you're not doing so already, you should aim for three days per week of strength training with weights.
Second, you should do at least three days per week of moderate to vigorous cardiovascular exercise.
Third, if you wish to accelerate fat loss more, or if you need to break a progress plateau, you bump up your activity even further by adding additional cardio sessions or increasing the intensity or duration of your current workouts.
It also helps to get more physical activity in general, and to participate in physical hobbies, sports or recreational activities that you enjoy.
Bottom line:
The first secret to permanent fat loss is to BURN THE FAT, don't STARVE THE FAT
There are some exercise physiologists today, who call this concept "energy flux." That's a fancy way of saying, "Eat more, burn more," (instead of "eat less, exercise less"), and that's what the Burn The Fat philosophy is all about.

[GarthB]

Paul, Steven, Whoever...

To avoid accusations of plagiarism, it's alwasy best to give credit when you rip something off the interntet.

http://www.squidoo.com/spikeyourmetabolism/