Aren't you being a bit misguided? Or perhaps you just aren't expressing yourself clearly.
How can you claim that the body stores things it only receives in minimal amounts?!
One can only store an excess; a deficiency is already spent! 😉
The body uses that method as a preventative measure against food shortages, so avoiding certain foods is actually counterproductive.
Are you trying to suggest that the human body stores specific types of food?! 😁
Only fat can be stored, and fat is derived from excess blood carbohydrates (via insulin action).
If we aren't moving enough, the body has no need for that much energy, so the most calorie-dense foods steadily accumulate as fat.
Believe me, actual food cannot be stored as fat, and whoever told you otherwise is lying to you. As I mentioned, only carbohydrates (from food) are stored as fat, not the food itself—since during digestion, everything breaks down into carbs, fats, proteins, minerals, and vitamins.
northernridge97,
Generally speaking, you should be happy because most people struggle with being overweight. You're still young and developing; in 5 to 10 years, your metabolism will likely shift (unless there's a hormonal imbalance, which I highly doubt), so if you adopt heavy eating habits geared toward gaining weight now, you'll end up facing the opposite problem later.
You're thin because you lack body fat; quite simply, that's just your metabolism. You can only increase your body weight by building muscle mass (which also takes time) or by adding body fat, which can only be achieved through overeating.
I haven't personally used Sonic Drive-In (Tron, or whatever else they call it), but much like you, I’m approaching this with a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense.
First off, about 99% of products sold through late-night TV commercials are either total junk, overpriced, or don't actually do what they claim. If they were legitimate, they'd be sold in mainstream retail stores.
Secondly, if the claims in those ads were actually true, the manufacturer would be wealthier than Bill Gates. Even at a low price point—something similar to a monthly gym membership—most Americans would be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger instead of struggling with extra weight.
Finally, muscle growth requires physical strain to create micro-tears in the tissue. For this device to work, it would need to generate contractions strong enough to cause actual muscle damage. There is no way AA batteries can provide that kind of power, especially during normal daily activities.
P.S. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see a machine that burns fat and builds muscle simultaneously? 😲
P.P.S. This falls right into the category of those famous "diet pills and slimming patches." You know the ones, where the commercial shows an overweight person who suddenly transforms into a bodybuilder after the "treatment," leaving you wondering if they were selling weight loss aids or muscle builders. 😉
It’s true this thread was started way back in 2002, though the last update was in May 2003. That’s actually pretty recent, considering the fever "season" usually hits during the winter and flu months. 😉
You can grab some B-Complex over the counter—I don't think you even need a prescription for it—but it wouldn't hurt to check in with a dermatologist just to be safe.
Virolex works best when you apply a thin layer over the entire scab (or right on the spot on your lip where it starts itching, before the scab even forms). If the scab has already developed—since these infections often flare up while you sleep—try to apply it as many times as possible throughout the day.
Was it really that much trouble to look this up yourself?
Basically, everything you've heard about lip cold sores (herpes) is mostly accurate. Herpes is a viral condition that shows up as a scab on the lips—usually right where the mucous membrane meets the skin, though it can pop up on the skin or the mucous membranes both inside and outside the mouth. A weakened immune system is the main trigger, along with exposure to bacteria (like using unwashed glasses at a cafe or touching metal objects).
A drop in immunity can be caused by fighting off another illness (typically a common cold or a virus during the winter) or just general stress. You can take vitamins preventatively (like Pfizer's B-Complex) to make outbreaks happen less frequently, or even suppress them for longer periods.
For treatment, Virolex cream is the most effective option (it’s a bit pricey for the size, but worth every penny), and you should apply it as soon as possible—ideally before the area starts swelling or forming a blister.
Using simple grape seed ointment (which used to be huge) or ChapStick (these days) also helps prevent issues during the winter, because when the skin on your lips cracks from the cold, herpes often follows.
So, there it is—brief, yet quite thorough. Now we can start taking bets on how many months it will take for this exact same topic (with the same questions and answers) to resurface. 😉
Karen White13,
I'm neither bored nor interested in bickering. It's just that I don't care for people who expect others to provide answers they could easily find on their own.
This isn't some groundbreaking new topic; it's just a repeated attempt to find answers to questions we've already covered extensively.
Spamming the same threads makes zero sense. It just clutters up the server space, not to mention forcing people to track three identical discussions in three different places.
If someone finds it too much effort to move their butt—and honestly, all it takes is one mouse click or typing a few letters to use that 'search' button in the top right corner—then that lazy person isn't worth my help.
Besides, this "brilliant" thread was actually relevant on these exact pages until about a month ago. We aren't talking about months or years of neglect here. 👎
Before you decide to start yet another thread, perhaps take a moment to browse through our previous discussions? You might find that all your questions have already been answered there.
It would also be helpful if the moderators kept a closer eye on things to prevent duplicate topics from popping up.
If you had led with your most recent point, we wouldn't have wasted so many words on irrelevant tangents.
I agree that those listed conditions are complete nonsense and place the taxi association in an absolute monopoly. It seems rather strange to me that the government would delegate the right to sell—or rather, lease out—concessions to an association.
I am not entirely sure how things work in Venice, but considering the taxi drivers (the local association) protested during the last round of concessions because City Hall offered more than before, I assume the granting of concessions isn't actually under the association's control.
Standardizing service only makes sense if we lack the option to choose, meaning we are "forced" to accept whatever level of service is provided at that moment. I still maintain that taxi services are unique because they aren't usually planned ahead (unlike going to a grocery store or a restaurant), and the primary goal is simply getting from point A to point B as quickly and smoothly as possible. Besides, very few people have the time or patience to hunt for the exact specific ride they want (unless they already have the driver's cell number saved).
Still, I am not convinced that a completely free market would actually improve quality. We are famously experts at finding ways to bypass anything even remotely normal, so chaos often erupts even in industries that are quite heavily regulated.😉
Perhaps my previous wording was slightly imprecise. A Yellow Cab isn't a public utility or a state-owned entity, but it is certainly a specialized service. They provide transportation options that are largely limited to government-controlled transit agencies or state-regulated private firms. However, one cannot truly compare a taxi driver to a tailor or an optician. When you need a ride, you need it right then; there is rarely time—or the desire—to haggle with someone trying to sell you a "pig in a poke." These regulations exist specifically to prevent drivers from using the guise of free market competition to offer wildly inconsistent levels of service.
Regarding your pizza comment: imagine receiving an order that is perfectly fine, yet you simply don't like it. In that case, you are more than welcome to stop ordering from that establishment altogether.
When you walk into a shop, you aren't obligated to buy anything. But if that shop came directly to your door at your explicit request and you decided not to purchase anything, that would be a different matter entirely.
As for your thoughts on the "free market" versus "chaos," I suggest reconsidering. What kind of free market would actually exist if there were zero standards, allowing every provider to decide their own level of quality at their own whim? You mentioned that self-service stores don't all offer the same level of service; of course they don't, since there are no mandates for it. But they all, for example, keep dairy products in refrigerated displays. Imagine if they weren't required to do that. You go to the store for milk, bring it home, and find it spoiled. You won't return to that store, but now you have to wander all over town looking for a shop that actually keeps its milk cold. Is that a "free market," or just total chaos?
Passenger transport naturally includes various classes of service, but each class is precisely defined. When you book a specific tier, you know exactly what level of service to expect. Under your version of a "free market," you would know nothing upfront; you would simply have to be incredibly patient and persistent to find the quality you actually want.
P.S. In my humble opinion, a base fare for a Yellow Cab only makes sense for call requests, provided the pickup point is more than a mile away from a designated stand. If you hail a cab at a stand or catch one returning from a trip, there shouldn't be a base fee. I believe such a solution would be much fairer than the current system or the complete removal of the fee.
I believe you are heading in the wrong direction. These regulations aren't designed for the drivers, but rather for the passengers they serve.
Why does this apply specifically to an Uber? Because an Uber is a public service, not just a private vehicle.
When you need an Uber, how will you decide which one to call? Which driver will have air conditioning? Or when an Uber arrives after you call it, do you really think they won't charge you a base fee just because you were being difficult? Having AC isn't even a luxury for drivers anymore, since they aren't allowed to charge extra for it; if the AC works, it’s for their own comfort, not just the passenger's.
If we had a fleet of Ubers with wildly different amenities, it wouldn't be a market—it would be chaos. Drivers typically follow a specific order for trips, so it only makes sense that everyone provides a standardized level of service.
Dražava hasn't caused anyone any trouble here; someone driving an older car has clearly been in the business longer and has earned more than someone with a brand-new vehicle.
I have to disagree with you there. The Dražava guarantees a baseline level of quality for all goods and services.
It is strange to dismiss the importance of headrests while claiming seatbelts serve no purpose. As far as I am aware, seatbelts are most effective during collisions up to 37 miles/h, which is essentially the speed reached in any major city. Furthermore, headrests are useless without a belt, as their sole job is to prevent whiplash after the seatbelt has done its work.
The trunk space requirement is purely practical. When traveling with multiple passengers, especially during the summer months, extra luggage often becomes an issue. That said, most Uber drivers operate higher-end vehicles that offer ample room for both people and bags.
Air conditioning used to be a luxury, but nowadays even entry-level cars come with it as standard equipment. This regulation simply prevents discrimination by ensuring all passengers enjoy equal comfort.
The only real challenge will be the older vehicles that struggle to meet these rigorous new standards.
Regarding the "anti-SARS campaign," the issue isn't the "anti" part, but rather the "campaign" itself.
I am aware of the mortality rates—SARS currently sits at around 5-7%, whereas the flu can hit about 15% among the elderly population over 60—which is why I made my previous point. Unfortunately, many journalists and even experts are often just chasing fame and media attention, so they present information in whatever way serves them best; there is simply no cure for that.
As for the second part of my statement that you "quoted," those figures don't refer to SARS, but rather to the statistics mentioned above regarding the high number of victims resulting from medical malpractice.
I am curious, though: who determined that these were actually genuine errors? If these have been legally established, then substantial settlements have certainly been paid out. On the other hand, if such conclusions were drawn solely based on hospital records and the subjective assessments of certain experts, then we are looking at nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.
Well, mercury is toxic and dangerous because it accumulates in the body (once you've been exposed, you'll eventually hit a lethal dose), but as far as I know, amalgam fillings aren't even used anymore, at least not by private dentists, and there's mercury in fish too.
I agree that antibiotics are often overused and unnecessary, but refusing an antibiotic when it's actually needed is more foolish than brave or smart. A simple bacterial infection, manifesting as something like a sore throat, can lead to pretty serious consequences, such as pneumonia or kidney issues.
darkbison81,
Regarding those tricky questions, I have to admit I don't have any specific data, and besides, what's the point? You aren't suggesting we'd all be better off without antibiotics and vaccines, are you?!
I have to partially disagree with you there. I don't think neurosurgery is really the right metric for comparison. You have to admit, though, that the number of Neolithic neurosurgical procedures can't possibly be compared to the volume of similar operations performed today.
For instance, how many appendectomies were performed in the Neolithic era—since you're so insistent on that point—versus how many we perform nowadays? Or, how can one even compare modern medicine, equipped with X-rays, ultrasound, CT scans, MRIs, defibrillators, and ventilators, to a medical practice that relied solely on physical touch, clinical observation, and patient feedback?
Of course, I am not searching for brilliance in certain "ancient" methods like acupuncture or acupressure, which managed to diagnose and treat a wide range of ailments even without all this sophisticated technology at our fingertips.
It is all fine, I suppose, but look at cataract surgery. It used to be something just two or three people could perform, yet millions died from it back then. Today, hundreds of thousands of Doctors are capable of doing it; I simply think it is misplaced to compare them.
There was a time when people would die from a simple broken bone, and "treatment" looked more like sessions of torture than actual healing.
Wouldn't it be quite interesting if we could determine how many of those 280,000 people mentioned above might have survived if they had received no medical treatment at all?
P.S. Don't get me wrong—I am not defending doctors or the healthcare system; that isn't even on my mind. I just believe things aren't always as black and white as they seem.
With all due respect to those who disagree, I feel this article is just as sensationalist as this whole anti-SARS campaign. It would be interesting to see the basis for these figures; if they are just arbitrary estimates, then it's quite unprofessional. On the other hand, if this data is accurate, I wonder how the US healthcare system avoids bankruptcy, given how high medical malpractice payouts are over there. It's certainly much easier to accuse—and if they're wrong, convict—Doctors than it is here.
Furthermore, to truly assess whether healthcare is doing more good or harm, we would need data on the total number of patients treated alongside the number of successful recoveries.
Claiming that modern medicine is similar to "healthcare" from thousands of years ago is more tragicomic than funny.
P.S. Are today's builders less capable than those of the past simply because they can't build a pyramid?! If so, why weren't there skyscrapers in the past? For them—the supposed experts—that would be a piece of cake. 😉
While I don't doubt both approaches yield results, separating proteins from carbohydrates feels somewhat unnatural to me. Since both are essential metabolic drivers, omitting one seems bound to create an imbalance.
The fundamental cause of weight gain is consuming excessive carbohydrates relative to energy expenditure, so that's where our focus should lie—limiting intake to reasonable levels and prioritizing low-glycemic options. Meanwhile, protein is vital for preserving muscle mass; if you consume carbs without enough protein, you risk losing muscle, much like the effects of starvation dieting.
If your prescription keeps climbing, it isn't necessarily caused by wearing glasses. Why not seek a second opinion from a specialist who might offer actual treatments? There are eye drops and medications available; I know this from my own experience.
Laser vision correction shouldn't even be an option if you're under 18 or 19, since your body is still developing and your vision hasn't stabilized yet. What is the point in dropping $2,500 just to end up back in glasses a year later? Besides, your prescription doesn't sound that severe.
Regarding the cost, you're looking at roughly $1,500 per eye. There are also risks involved: your prescription might continue to increase if it hasn't leveled off, or you might not achieve full correction and still need glasses—which happens often with high prescriptions. Then there are potential complications like blurred vision or double vision. While these issues only affect about 3-4% of patients, that's cold comfort for those who actually experience them.
There are already two or three threads on this section of the forum regarding laser surgery. Why not take a moment to find and read through them? They should still be quite relevant.
Steroids are essentially horse hormones. Human hormones simply aren't sufficient—regardless of training intensity—to achieve the abnormal muscle volumes reached through steroids.
The benefit is gaining massive muscle mass in a relatively short period.
The downside, besides the temporary nature of the effects, is the extreme danger to your health. Comparing other drugs to steroids is like comparing them to child's play; by taking steroids, the brain stops producing adequate human hormones because the body is receiving them artificially. In the event of a hormonal imbalance, a "system crash" and death can occur very rapidly—within ten minutes.
Since you are quite thin for your height, the only way to gain weight is through regular nutrition, featuring a higher protein content (the amino acid chains that build muscle mass), and anaerobic exercise (weightlifting at the gym). Once you start training, your appetite will likely increase; try splitting your meals into 6 or 7 portions a day so you don't feel like you're overeating, which is also a healthier way to eat.
Also, do not expect instant results. You will probably only see real progress after about six months of consistent training and eating.
Rather than arguing with those who disagree, why not explain things more clearly to us laypeople (since you are presumably an expert)? What exactly is the issue here—is it the monopoly itself, the pricing, the service quality, or outright fraud?
From what I understand about this subject, cities grant a specific number of licenses for Uber services; at least, that is how it works in my small town. During the last round of licensing, the local Uber association—which likely has national affiliations—complained about having too many licenses available. If they were protesting that, then it stands to reason that someone currently without a license could potentially obtain one (though I am unsure if new providers must join said association).
As for high costs, that is more a reflection of a low standard of living than the monopoly itself.
Poor service and "ripping off" customers aren't direct results of a monopoly either; the same people would act the same way even in a free market. There are regulations, fines, and consumer protection laws in place for those issues.
If the "monopoly"—meaning the limited issuance of Uber licenses—were abolished, prices might drop slightly, though certainly not as drastically as some might hope. However, you would end up with a wildly inconsistent level of service. Furthermore, an uncontrolled surge of new drivers would likely mean that almost none of them could earn enough to run a profitable business. In our current environment (with the possible exception of Chicago or a few other major hubs), the customer base is relatively fixed, and if you slice the same pie into many more pieces, everyone gets a much smaller portion.
How can I be entirely mistaken if your "correction" only addresses a fraction of my post?!
Fortunately, I have never undergone general anesthesia myself, but my brother went through it twice. Both times were identical: he was drowsy and hungover all day following the surgery, with lingering lethargy the next day. Why was your experience different? I am unsure; perhaps it depends on the specific gas used or some other factor.
Anyway, a sinus endoscopy isn't actually a surgical procedure; it is a diagnostic tool for the nasal cavity. It only becomes a surgery if a growth is discovered that requires removal, but even then, it isn't complex enough to necessitate general anesthesia.
stormylynx14,
I truly wasn't aware of that regarding intravenous general anesthesia. However, given the current standards of safety, I couldn't agree with you—not if you live in America. While I admit the risk should be minimal, unfortunately, mistakes and oversights happen so frequently here that the risk is far from negligible.