Lyle's books - anyone read?

Dnia 2006-11-14 Hobbes napisa³(a):
> Like any good scientist Lyle builds on the works of others. That is what
> science is all about. He gives full credit to the Bodyopus diet and uses
> references in his book.

DZ is a scientist; Lyle, for all I know, is a scholar who was a
scientist once.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

"Shute" <Shute.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote
> "Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
<some boring douchebag troll stuff>

> Dave is a WebTV convert. You can't take anything he says too
> seriously.

Cute couple: the boring douchebag troll and the idiotta di tutti idiotta.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

But of course, you ducked the real issue.
Quick: Wikipedia...
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_8q6h.7115$ig4.4596@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
> <some boring douchebag troll stuff>
>
>> Dave is a WebTV convert. You can't take anything he says too
>> seriously.
>
> Cute couple: the boring douchebag troll and the idiotta di tutti idiotta.
>
> David
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

Joe Humble <joehumble DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:49:21 -0500, "Steve Freides"
><steve DeleteThis @fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What are lyle's credentials and why should I trust anything he says?
>>
>>He's smart enough to have stopped frequenting mfw - 'nuff said 'cause,
>>right there, he's smarter than all of us here.
>
>Eh, if you enjoy the drama it is actually rather amusing. Was he one
>of those types who took it WAY too personally?

Y'mean like that Mike Lane dude?
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

Joe Humble <joehumble DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:41:10 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
><leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><kcmunchkin DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1163445291.942261.142450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> determined wrote:
>>>> Lyle is a pretty prolific writer, and I'm interested in reading one of
>>>> his
>>>> books.
>>>
>>> lyle managed to jump on the atkins-style diet bandwagon 3-4 (or, was is
>>> 5-6?) years after this type of dieting started to come back after the
>>> WBF/DiPasquale debacle in 1992. opitimum training systems started
>>> pushing dipasquale's "anabolic diet" in their follow-up to serious
>>> growth/bulgarian burst called serious growth 3: big beyond belief.
>>>
>>> didn't he start out at like 174 with a high bf% and get down somewhere
>>> into the 150's? i can't remember what his first posts were like, but
>>> it seemed something like that.
>>>
>>> either way, he was/is just another guy with a library card who managed
>>> to repackage a diet and sell it as his own.
>>>
>>
>>Unlike yourself, who doesn't have a library card and couldn't repackage a
>>Tonka toy.
>>
>>Whatever you say about Lyle, he does do his research. So much, that he
>>reviews a research article every week on his e-mail weekly publication. And
>>he has read thousands of them as well. How many research reports have you
>>read?
>
>Hmm, it pays to be wary of people who learn via journal articles. It
>is possible to sound very smart but be really quite deficient in the
>basics.
>
>I don't know if that applies to him but if that is his main claim to
>fame I'd be less than impressed.

I guess the converse can be true. I remember one guy here who was
taking a pre-med course and started offering assinine speculations
based on isolated factoids he learned in class.
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

"JMW" <jmwilliams RemoveThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:8jpnl2hfbq1316cs8ae40sipuh05j7mdkd@4ax.com...
> Joe Humble <joehumble RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:41:10 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>><leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><kcmunchkin RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1163445291.942261.142450@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> determined wrote:
>>>>> Lyle is a pretty prolific writer, and I'm interested in reading one of
>>>>> his
>>>>> books.
>>>>
>>>> lyle managed to jump on the atkins-style diet bandwagon 3-4 (or, was is
>>>> 5-6?) years after this type of dieting started to come back after the
>>>> WBF/DiPasquale debacle in 1992. opitimum training systems started
>>>> pushing dipasquale's "anabolic diet" in their follow-up to serious
>>>> growth/bulgarian burst called serious growth 3: big beyond belief.
>>>>
>>>> didn't he start out at like 174 with a high bf% and get down somewhere
>>>> into the 150's? i can't remember what his first posts were like, but
>>>> it seemed something like that.
>>>>
>>>> either way, he was/is just another guy with a library card who managed
>>>> to repackage a diet and sell it as his own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unlike yourself, who doesn't have a library card and couldn't repackage a
>>>Tonka toy.
>>>
>>>Whatever you say about Lyle, he does do his research. So much, that he
>>>reviews a research article every week on his e-mail weekly publication.
>>>And
>>>he has read thousands of them as well. How many research reports have
>>>you
>>>read?
>>
>>Hmm, it pays to be wary of people who learn via journal articles. It
>>is possible to sound very smart but be really quite deficient in the
>>basics.
>>
>>I don't know if that applies to him but if that is his main claim to
>>fame I'd be less than impressed.
>
> I guess the converse can be true. I remember one guy here who was
> taking a pre-med course and started offering assinine speculations
> based on isolated factoids he learned in class.

Actually, johnny, it's more like the inverse. sheeesh.....
Look up converse, inverse, obverse, reverse....
Consider:
John frees all the guilty and John jails all the innocent
The latter is actually the inverse of the obverse.
The converse of either of the above statements would in fact make a
competent lawyer.

But then, paralegals just have to get citations right, in approximately the
right context.
Hopefully you can do that.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay DeleteThis @optonline2.718.net>
wrote:
>
>Actually, johnny, it's more like the inverse. sheeesh.....
>Look up converse, inverse, obverse, reverse....
>Consider:
>John frees all the guilty and John jails all the innocent
>The latter is actually the inverse of the obverse.
>The converse of either of the above statements would in fact make a
>competent lawyer.

<yawn> I suppose you have a PhD in English, too? You still haven't
mentioned where you got your BS in Physics, your BS in Chemistry, your
MS in Nutrition, your MS in Biochemistry, and where you were studying
for your PhD in Enzyme Kinetics. Perhaps you missed the question.

BTW, are you related to Neal Fabian?
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

<yawn>???
After you've been caught but once again, you fake-assed ignerint fraud??

Yeah, you ignerint-assed paralegal, mebbe I just got my GED, but at least I
know how to use "converse" correctly.
And you went to law school?? Gradurated college?? Pity the foo's you work
with...
Still cain't calculate the caloric work done in lifting a weight, eh? Want
some hints?
You don't get it, do you?

See, the diff between you and the rest of the normal world is that you are
obsessed w/ validation/credibility, since you yerself don't have any, which
you prove virtually *every time you post*--this last one being a classic.
A "supposed" fukn lawyer who cain't use "converse" correckly??
Just what does that say?? That your education, whatever it was, was
useless.

Regardless of whether I have or don't have degrees, I don't make elementary
errors like you, who basically cites bullshit refs, quotes more bullshit and
abstracts, but really don't have a clue as to what they're talking about--as
per Joe Humble's very astute observation of citation w/o knowing basics.

In fact, citation of research w/o knowing the basics is almost pointless,
the yappings of amateurs, as almost anything can be proven by bullshit
research.
Which is why you stopped talking about the actin/myosin stuff, because when
it gets beyond the abstract, you don't have a *fukn clue* as to what's goin
on.
Why'd you stop, johnny? You were goin good for a while.

In grad school, we took a full semester course in just *analyzing* classic
research papers in biochem--2 to 3 students per paper, each group giving a
presentation. A *miserably difficult* course, w/ the professor herself not
knowing half of what was going on most of them time, because most of the
articles were outside of her specialty, and with us invariably winding up w/
more questions than answers.
It is *very* difficult to grok research papers.
Read Peter Menards (nobel laureate in med) comments in Justin's The Eighth
Day of Creation, concerning the deliberate crypticness of research. Never
mind the fraud.
Or Watson himself in The Double Helix.

If you are trying to duplicate some part of another researcher's work, and
you call them up for clarification, most of the time they won't have a *fukn
clue* as to what you are talking about, or what THEY were talking about in
their own paper. Often they won't return your calls, hoping you'll just go
away.
Etc.
But of course, you already knew this.
Oh, gee, I wonder what school dat was.... I musta been makin it all up.

So, tell us, what fraction of caloric expenditure of a lift comes from the
eccentric contraction? How could one determine this experimentally?
Actin-myosin interactions gotcher tongue, johnny?
Got a prostitution/vandalism case to prosecute, I mean, research??
bitch....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"JMW" <jmwilliams.TakeThisOut@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:10unl21pr5dl88h0qbmobcntspcg269of9@4ax.com...
> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay.TakeThisOut@optonline2.718.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, johnny, it's more like the inverse. sheeesh.....
>>Look up converse, inverse, obverse, reverse....
>>Consider:
>>John frees all the guilty and John jails all the innocent
>>The latter is actually the inverse of the obverse.
>>The converse of either of the above statements would in fact make a
>>competent lawyer.
>
> <yawn> I suppose you have a PhD in English, too? You still haven't
> mentioned where you got your BS in Physics, your BS in Chemistry, your
> MS in Nutrition, your MS in Biochemistry, and where you were studying
> for your PhD in Enzyme Kinetics. Perhaps you missed the question.
>
> BTW, are you related to Neal Fabian?
>
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:39:33 GMT, Joe Humble <joehumble.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:49:21 -0500, "Steve Freides"
><steve.RemoveThis@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> What are lyle's credentials and why should I trust anything he says?
>>
>>He's smart enough to have stopped frequenting mfw - 'nuff said 'cause,
>>right there, he's smarter than all of us here.
>>
>
>Eh, if you enjoy the drama it is actually rather amusing.

I entirely agree, but it is necessary to be fully involved in active
participation to fully appreciate this aspect.

>Was he one
>of those types who took it WAY too personally?

He was typically way over the top with his personal attacks, but took
great exception to all forms of retaliation. He was crude almost
beyond belief, particularly concerning 'porn' and masturbation. He has
some sort of fixation about monkeys, with whom he is morbidly
obsessed.

McDonald has an arrogant unshakeable belief in his own ability, in a
whole range of endeavours and activities. However, this only helped to
illuminate his inherent insecurity.

He dismissed violently others' 'modest' contributions on almost every
topic, but given that his raison d'être was pecuniary gain, this is
not really surprising as he wanted to be acknowledged as the resident
expert. He was particularly antagonistic to newcomers to the Group,
but then so were most of the then "regulars."

Given that most people are probably much nicer in real life than their
on-line persona, McDonald was part of a group of people at MFW who met
up regularly in real life, and as a consequence enjoyed the popularity
and support of those people. However, even here he transgressed and
made a notable enemy.

He has been running his own forum for some time now where, with his
faithful lieutenant, he is able to control input to his heart's
content, the better to take commercial advantage of his on-line
activities.
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

"Charles" <jrh.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9d8ol21b4gk15d4rgb72lvjnkmg2t3lh14@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:39:33 GMT, Joe Humble <joehumble.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:49:21 -0500, "Steve Freides"
>><steve.RemoveThis@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> What are lyle's credentials and why should I trust anything he says?
>>>
>>>He's smart enough to have stopped frequenting mfw - 'nuff said 'cause,
>>>right there, he's smarter than all of us here.
>>>
>>
>>Eh, if you enjoy the drama it is actually rather amusing.
>
> I entirely agree, but it is necessary to be fully involved in active
> participation to fully appreciate this aspect.
>
>>Was he one
>>of those types who took it WAY too personally?
>
> He was typically way over the top with his personal attacks, but took
> great exception to all forms of retaliation. He was crude almost
> beyond belief, particularly concerning 'porn' and masturbation. He has
> some sort of fixation about monkeys, with whom he is morbidly
> obsessed.
>
> McDonald has an arrogant unshakeable belief in his own ability, in a
> whole range of endeavours and activities. However, this only helped to
> illuminate his inherent insecurity.
>
> He dismissed violently others' 'modest' contributions on almost every
> topic, but given that his raison d'être was pecuniary gain, this is
> not really surprising as he wanted to be acknowledged as the resident
> expert. He was particularly antagonistic to newcomers to the Group,
> but then so were most of the then "regulars."
>
> Given that most people are probably much nicer in real life than their
> on-line persona, McDonald was part of a group of people at MFW who met
> up regularly in real life, and as a consequence enjoyed the popularity
> and support of those people. However, even here he transgressed and
> made a notable enemy.
>
> He has been running his own forum for some time now where, with his
> faithful lieutenant, he is able to control input to his heart's
> content, the better to take commercial advantage of his on-line
> activities.

And why shouldn't he? This is what he currently does for a living, AFAIK.
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read? 

In article <10unl21pr5dl88h0qbmobcntspcg269of9 DeleteThis @4ax.com>, JMW
<jmwilliams DeleteThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay DeleteThis @optonline2.718.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, johnny, it's more like the inverse. sheeesh.....
> >Look up converse, inverse, obverse, reverse....
> >Consider:
> >John frees all the guilty and John jails all the innocent
> >The latter is actually the inverse of the obverse.
> >The converse of either of the above statements would in fact make a
> >competent lawyer.
>
> <yawn> I suppose you have a PhD in English, too? You still haven't
> mentioned where you got your BS in Physics, your BS in Chemistry, your
> MS in Nutrition, your MS in Biochemistry, and where you were studying
> for your PhD in Enzyme Kinetics. Perhaps you missed the question.
>
> BTW, are you related to Neal Fabian?

Neal Fabian can squat 900lbs for reps. He's the Chuck Norris of the 'net.
 >> Stay informed about: Lyle's books - anyone read?