really?
 

Can't tell for sure with only one frame but from the catcher's stance, glove and hand position, etc, it looks like the ball just got caught and he (F2) is looking out to check the status of a runner, so we don't know where the PU was at the start.

If that is so his position must have changed at the time of the ball crossing the plate. As shown, he is too low in his stance.

:D
If he changed placed with the catcher he could call the pitches, too. And nobody would notice they changed places...

JJ

The Ying-Yang Twins don't even get that low.

It look more like a rules encyclopedia he's toting around.

Nice "speed skater" hand position.:rolleyes:

Very comical.

At - or after. Moving after is not unusual.

What should the eye level be with the various stances?

Are you sure that's not a whisk broom in his pocket?

Jerry

He looks young. Might be a comic book. Or the cliff notes of "Umpiring For Idiots". Yes, I've read it....:p

JJ

Oh, I don't know... his height is perfect for a U10 game.

Looks like this is a young umpire who used to be (or still is) a catcher.

Give him a couple of years and his knees won't be able to do that.

I downloaded the picture and tried zooming and sharpening and couldn't tell what it is.

Did you.....just.....quote......the Ying-Yang......Twins? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/skep.gif

Peace

That was my first thought. Looks like one to me...

It's a Reader's Digest. Gotta have something to do during those long breaks between half-innings.......

We all have been there. That guy just needs a good weekend clinic taught by some good instructors.

Didn't I tell you before that's how I roll?:cool:

Hey maybe that's a copy of Catcher in the Rye he's got in his pocket.

Can't wait ti hear the Old Guard squack, "that's what your equipment is for"

Translatiion: "i can't parallel squat butt-to-heels b/c:

1) old
2) obese
3) old and obese
4) lazy
4) lazy, old and obese...

...you get the idea. :D

Anyone whose legs are not made of jello should be able to squat behind home plate 300+ times a night. I get tired of guys saying "oh I'm so old and my legs are so sore" as an excuse to not move from behind homeplate, not work homeplate or not work 2nd base in a 4 man system. However I would say that obesity is partly the result of genetics, even if it wouldn't hurt to get off the couch and do some running now and then.

Thanks Canada for quoting this poster (who I have very nicely placed on my ignore list)!!..

So Fitty, you advocate this stance for those of us who are in good enough physical condition to attempt it?

Geez, do we really need to find some picture of some young umpire out of some field somewhere and slam his stance and make fun of him? Yeesh, we all have been there. Maybe our stance was ok, but there was probably something else in our game that needed a lot of work.
We are all in this together. You slam others to just feel better about yourselves?

Chris Hickman...are you the same Chris who was hanging with Gilly behind the backstop at my game at Marina a couple weeks ago?

didn't have to look hard, it's on this site.

Yes, unfortunately that is the reality with a lot of people here. A lot of them lack any class whatsoever, including the person who posted the picture. No doubt this post will get deleted or edited. I also thought it was inappropriate to post a picture of somebody online for everybody to snicker at, but you've gotta admit it is an example of very bad form.

What's the difference of posting this photo to demonstrate a "don't do that" and answering some of the inane LL questions that get posted with "don't do that"?" The visual aid may actually be more beneficial.

I'm sorry you've decided not to get along with the orignal poster. He could you help you more than any other poster at this site, if you truly wanted to improve, that is.

Does it hurt when you talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time (and better yet - in the same sentence)?

Walt

Flattened tp roll imho.....;)

In the past, it has always been taught that the PU's chin should never be lower than the top of the catcher's head.

There is a trend to be much higher than even that.

Unquestionably, this guy is too low.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I have them both on mine. Saves time that way. But I admit to peeking depending on where they have both placed their insane posts. This time they are fat bashing again. They both must have been sat on as children.:)

Discipline, Steve, discipline.

That was my exact thought when I saw this.........I bet he is still catching at some level..........

and you are right.........he wont be able to do that (not that he should want to) in a few years......

Hey all,

If you think about it, most catchers end up scrambling on hands and feet to get to a passed ball that goes back behind them, and the PU is the person who just side steps to get out of the way. Squatting, like in the picture, does not lend itself to easy, comfortable, BALANCED, and quick lateral movement. That is why the PU needs to be higher than where he is in the picture.


LomUmp:cool:

What infuriates me is that these fat bashers on this forum continue to engage in this practice regardless of the fact that it shows a complete lack of interpersonal relationship skills. It is not socially acceptable to discriminate against people based on many things, including weight-height ratio, body fat percentage, or physical disability.

Besides, I'm a pretty big guy at 6', 288 lbs., but I can still do a catcher's squat repeatedly if I so choose. I don't do it because it is an improper stance when working the plate. It is a great stance, OTOH, for taking a crap on a camping trip in the woods.

Several posters here have shown more talent in this than in officiating. That's for sure.


Tim.

That's because they are wipers, and don't wear diapers, like a few posters around here. That's for sure. Give it a rest already......:rolleyes:

Physician, heal thyself.

I'm in first year medical school compared to some who have taken the "hypocritical" oath...........:D

The issue is not "their" actions, it's yours.

That said, the advice could be followed by several individuals.

That would make the rest of the forum M.D.s in that case.

Sorry RPatrino, you won't see my answer since I am on your "I" list so I decline to give one.

Must be the case. It certainly hasn't a thing to do with showing experience in umpiring, sad to say. :o

Wrong as to able, who knows as to want to.

Steve, quit being so paranoid. Nobody here was fat bashing. I was bashing umpires who are too lazy to work the plate, or 2nd base in a four man system, or cover 2nd base when their partner goes out on a fly to right. As a side note, many of these same guys don't exercise, but use age and genetics as an excuse for why they are so out of shape.

I'm not paranoid. Don't try to tell me that fitump was not fat bashing, as that is one of his favorite hobbies. Oh, and there are plenty of skinny folks out there who try to get out of working the plate all the time. I love working the plate and I hustle my a$$ off. Very similar to what you see in Rich's videos he just posted. I run back to my positions too, I never walk. I run out to the outfield at the end of innings on the bases. I run to the line when the catcher sends it down. I hustle all the time. Most overweight umpires who can get around well hustle too, because of the misperception that we are just fat, lazy slobs.

Again you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. Earlier you agreed that genetics play a big role in many obese (or overweight) people. This indeed does make it extremely difficult to take off weight for some people. Then in this post you say that genetics is used as an "excuse." Which is it, an important role in certain overweight people, or just an excuse for being out of shape?

Here is the fact: Many overweight people are also physically challenged in other health related areas, and simply cannot get the weight off. 65% of the population in the United States is considered by weight-to-height ratios to be obese. Fat people are certainly not a minority group.

On the other hand, every week I seem to hear of a skinny, "in shape," borderline anorexic star athlete keeling over dead in a marathon race, like that former Notre Dame star. Go figure.

Studies indicate that while health issues and weight go hand in hand, more often it is the weight issues that is the precursor to the health issue, e.g. diabetes and heart disease.

Those with both health issues and weight issues are the ones who should be taking the weight off the most.

Yet in many areas they are clamoring for minority group status and protection.


The number of thin people dying from physical exertion is miniscule in comparison. That's why it makes the news.

I am not unsympathetic. I have fought a tendency to gain weight since I turned 45. But I do fight, and right now I have it under control. The fight is easier these days since a "come to Jesus" meeting over my heart with a cardiologist. Nothing motivates like the ultimate consequence.

Both. Genetics certainly does have an influence on one's weight. But so do eating habits and exercise. While some people are bound to be a bit round around the edges, they should at least do their best to keep their weight under control.

I should add that one's size and physique does have an influence on how an umpire is treated and percieved. Someone who comes out to the ballpark in this kind of shape is going to find it hard to earn much respect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqbONBsUJs

I'm sorry to hear this, and I hope you stay healthy. When did this happen, what happened, etc.?

Much of my work involves editing of medical papers, and one of my clients studies issues of obesity for federal and state governments. In fact, I just finished editing a proposal for a follow-up to a 2002 study of the nutrient intake of children in America. Such a study costs millions of dollars.

Obesity is termed an "epidemic" today. Go to your local shopping mall and sit on a bench for half an hour, and you will see a dozen morbidly obese people go by. These are not just people who should lose some weight (like me); they are people with a body mass index of 35 or more (that would be 5'10", 244 lb.), and a 100% likelihood of severe health problems. In 1957, a person with a BMI of 40 (5'10", 278 lb.) was 1 in 20,000. Today, you see one or two at every ball game you umpire.

The federal government is particularly concerned, because the cost of related diseases is so high. For example, in the St. Louis metropolitan area alone, diabetes costs Medicare and Medicaid several billion dollars. It is ironic that in America obesity is far more prevalent at lower-income levels. In India and Africa, the poor people are not fat.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out most of the reasons behind the epidemic. For the first time in American history, for example, many children are sedentary, so much so that researchers speak of their high volume of "screen time." Sweets are also cheaper and more plentiful: in real dollars, Coca-Cola costs 1/20 of what it did in 1957. (If at the movies a "Big Gulp" of 52 ounces—with a pound and a half of sugar—cost $25 instead of $1.29, how many people would buy one?) Further, many people get 90% of their "nutrients" and calories through high-fat, high-sugar, high-salt fast food. Supersized portions eventually create supersized people.

But though the various culprits are largely obvious, no one is certain about their individual degree of significance. So much has changed over the years that it's impossible to get treatment and control groups, or to measure the effect of any single factor alone.

There is also growing concern about a particular ingredient that may be far more nefarious than anyone suspected: high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a cheap form of sugar that has fast replaced cane sugar in soft drinks and even many baked goods. (It was developed in the 1970s, but only recently has it surpassed cane sugar in use.) The evidence is hardly all in, but much of the problem might lie with HFCS, which, while it certainly sweetens, does not satisfy a person's desire for sweets. We all crave sweets at times, but we quickly "overdose" with cane sugar. But you can ingest HFCS all day and still want more. HFCS also has quite a different chemistry. Google it to learn some of its health concerns.

Note: BMI over 30 is considered overweight (and under 25 underweight), but this is just a general rule. Much depends on the person's body type. Still, BMI of 35 is obese no matter what the body type, and BMI of 40 is extremely serious. It's like having blood pressure of 180/130.

I was going to mention high fructose corn syrup if you didn't. I believe mostly though obesity is brought on by lifestyle choices. I don't know if anyone watches "The Biggest Loser" and that is what it is certainly all about. People on that show what to change their life and their way of living it.

Now, I agree it a promotional tool for 24 Hour Fitness since they are the main sponsor of the show. IMO, they show very little of what the participants really do and they more than likely workout in their own little fitness center from the looks of things. Reality TV in all it's glory.

The emotions of these people are real though. For the first time in years, they are learning how to come to grips with their struggles to lose weight. Even the people voted off the show take the knowledge and willpower gained with them back home and continue to exercise and diet properly. That's what is takes to pull the weight off more than anything. Total commitment to what your doing and having a goal in mind. Don't think you can't do it because you can. One pound a week is great progress, especially on a steady basis. Equals fifty two pounds in a year!

Too many make excuses why they can't lose weight and that's just wrong. Go see your doctor, get a complete check up and get started before the New Year. Give yourself an early Christmas present. Find a friend or spouse to sign up with you, but don't quit. When you reach your goal, don't stop to exercise. You will glad you did in the long run.

Yeah, it won't be easy, but it isn't as hard as you think. Don't be ashamed to walk into the fitness center either. You are there for yourself and yourself only. You are not in competition with anybody there. Keep that in mind. Weight loss in calories and calories out. The less calories you take in and the more you burn equals weight loss.

What have you got to lose? Only the weight you need to.

The less calories you take in and the more you burn equals weight loss.

True in theory, but it can be frustrating, because when you start cutting calories, your metabolism slows down, too. Many people eat less but lose no weight. For people who need to lose 10% to 15% of body weight, eating less and maintaining a better diet usually works, but people extremely overweight should consult a specialist. Surgery is often part of the solution.

Steven, you are 100% correct that it's a matter not of dieting but of making permanent changes that will result in gradual loss down to your normal weight. At least two Hollywood actors died of extreme and rapid weight loss: (1) Laird Cregar (famous for his 1944 portrayal of Jack the Ripper) died at 28 after going from 300 to 200 lb. in a short time, and (2) Oliver Hardy, who dropped from over 300 to 150 lb. in a few weeks. Anna Nicole Smith and Angela Aames also undoubtedly damaged their hearts with weight loss drugs.

The guy who used to sponsor my softball team would go from about 450 lb. to as much as 650 lb., and when he reached that point (BMI = 85!), he would check himself into a clinic for six weeks and take a couple of hundred pounds off. That was in the late 1970s, when he was in his thirties. (He was 6'2" and had once been a fine offensive lineman at a heavy weight but not an extreme one.) God rest his soul.

It always gets me when overweight guys I know insist on fake cream and artificial sweetener in their coffee (to save maybe 50 calories) and then spend the evening eating potato chips and drinking beer.

Even better is the one that goes to McDonalds, Gets a supersized Double QP w/ cheese, XL Fries...................

and a Diet Coke.

msavakinas: You went from 275 to 197 in 39 weeks, exactly 2 pounds per week. This was not a crash diet. What regimen did you follow to lose almost 30% of your body weight?

Even better is the one that goes to McDonalds, Gets a supersized Double QP w/ cheese, XL Fries................

Everyone should see the movie "Supersize Me." You'll never have a McMeal again.

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.

That is an easy one to answer, as I am familiar with the order. The Diet Coke is because that person is a diabetic and can only drink diet soft drinks.

Anyway, sugar soda pop is worse for you than the burger and fries. Quit drinking regular soda and watch the pounds come off. Just be sure your system can have Aspartame.

Wow that's a two hour movie. Sounds like a big waste of class time to me, but I know if I was back in high school I would love having all that time to doze off.

I saw the movie and didn't find anything that disgusting about what gets put into the food. People always say stuff like "once you see what they put into those Chicken Mcnuggets you'll never want to eat them again". All I recall the video showing is that they were made from slaughtered chickens.

Big congratulations on the weight loss! That's 9 months of regular vigorous exercise, not to mention finding the time during umpiring season.

That explains a lot.

I saw the movie and didn't find anything that disgusting about what gets put into the food.

Perhaps you were dozing off when the three physicians—who had originally claimed that eating at McDonald's was simply something you shouldn't do too often—changed their minds after examining the test subject after he had eaten at McDonald's for 2 weeks. All three physicians then asserted that a person should probably never eat at McDonalds.

Are you not a even a little bit suspicious about what might be put into a Big Mac or a serving of fries such that when they are left at room temperature under glass for entire month, they show no signs of decay? The comparison burger and fries were moldy and rotten within two days.

But suit yourself; it's your health.

I referred this to a nutritionist today. The basic reply I got was, "I don't think so".

In turn, I wouldn't recommend this advice.

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 don't think that's a logical conclusion. Rather, I think it's more likley that the nutritionist doesn't think that there's any difference (from a weight loss perspective) between 250 calories from a "burger and fries" and 250 calories from a regular soda. (And the burger and fries probably has more calories than the soda)

Sure. Switching from 6 cans of soda a day @ 150 calories per can to 6 cans of diet soda @ zero calories will save 900 calories a day or about 90 pounds in a year (all else being equal).

A single helping of a hamburger and fries is about 750 to 1,000 calories or more depending on the size. Those burgers and fries turn to sugar when digested by the body. Plus, all the grease that accompanies them only helps clog and block arteries. While drinking diet soda reduces calories intake, the caffeine you will put in your body daily drinking six 12 oz. diet sodas really doesn't promote weight loss. It is best to drink water during the day and with each meal if you're really serious about losing weight.

You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.:rolleyes:

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255FZK%2526i%253D8%252F8%255F 5%255F1%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_5_1.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D8%252F8_5_1/image.gif"></a>

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

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.

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.

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.

[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? :D

JJ

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.

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.

" 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.:rolleyes:

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.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%">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.




<TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>

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/

Al Gore's movie is an inconvenient pile of rubbish, but I see he has sucked quite a few people in with it.

"Mmmmmm, unexplained bacon!" - Homer Simpson

Is this addressing anything or anyone, or just a random comment?

Random comment toward all those of a liberal persuasion. If that particular shoe fits...

I've got to hear more of this. Anything you care to tell us that FOX news and Bill O'Reilly haven't tried to shove down everyone's throat. At the least, tell us your exit strategy.