Zero Motorcycles has a few electric versions, but they are pretty expensive (~$12k and upwards).

I thought focus-follows-mouse would be the hardest thing about going from years of X back to a mac.

Turned out that text selection/paste is even harder . . .

hawk

On my parents' kitchen table . . .

Since I was around, it had to be sometime before mid-86 (likely summer 85. I think the family gatherings were July).

A cousin who worked for HP came by with a prototype (?) of a 68000 Unix luggable. It showed off by drawing a wire frame of the space shuttle and then,I believe, solidifying it, at an impressive speed for the time . . . (today, it would be done between frames, along with a couple of navies shooting at it . . .)

hawk

Not all bikers are like you. Personally, I would absolutely love an electric motorcycle.

Plus, all that power and more will be exerted in an electric motorcycle - they just won't be wasted on noise and vibrations. They will be efficiently used in a servo motor, and as a geek, that excites me more than any rumble of power being at my command.

I dunno, as someone who enjoys crotch-rockets (Hayabusa FTW), I love its look.

It's almost like something that Batman would ride.

I think those numbers in terms of calories and protein requirements (broscience or real science) are often directional, simply because we have different levels of activity with slight differences in metabolism. Even when people work out, one person may work out much more intensely than another.

So, the best solution is to play around with them until you're at a point that's best for you.

For me, I've been tracking my intake and dietary habits against my workouts and progress for over 7 years, and this is what I've found. I barely keep muscle mass at about .7-.8 gm/lb; I keep it and do well at 1-1.1 gm/lb; and I start putting more on at 1.2-1.4 gm/lb.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

They are both full of starch and high in carbs. They are good supplemental foods when you need energy, but I wouldn't base my diet around either of those.

But really, it is cultural. In the US, most food is centered around pasta, pizza, and burgers. Sure, we eat our share of salads, Asian food, curry, and so on, but I'd imagine that the vast majority of our carbs (other than from fries, soda, and candy) probably come from pasta, pizza, and bread.

Telling people to buckle up and giving them the tools and knowledge to fight their addiction is not verbal abuse.

I still think my maths hold up and you selected very specific body-builder-favoured foods to 'disprove' the maths.

No, the healthy choices happened to be those that athletes and bodybuilders favor, that is all. That doesn't make them "bodybuilding" food anymore than a burger is "fat people" food.

(Come on. Egg whites? No ordinary person would even think of eating an egg like that.)

Ummm, I do not know where you live. I am guessing not the US, from your comments. But here in the US, you get liquid egg whites, prepackaged, just like milk. You can just pour them and make an omelette. Everything I posted (e.g. fat free cottage cheese, Greek yogurt) is easily available in grocery stores.

I'm not, FWIW, arguing that you should avoid those foods. They're certainly nutritious and fine for their purpose. Just that no ordinary person would suddenly have a light-bulb moment and start a diet with these foods, for the purposes of getting fit or losing weight.

Which is why I posted them - the problem is as much ignorance and need for education as it is unhealthy habits.

(You're certainly correct that people must mind their protein intake when embarking on a quest of losing weight and it's something the mainstream media never seems to mention. Just that the number you quoted is way too high. (Yeah. I'm repeating myself.))

The number only seems high because we're used to diets that are relatively unhealthy, and carb/fat rich. In my own personal experience, you need at least that much protein to keep up your muscle mass. And btw, I am not a bodybuilder. I am not even an athlete. I am just a regular guy who does rock climbing about once a week, and tries to hit the gym once or twice a week. I am not buff - while I am in shape, I am not bulky, and far from "jacked". Even my workout schedule is very minimal (i.e. twice a week most weeks; maybe 3-4 times during the holidays because I eat a lot). Despite that, I have found that if I do not eat adequate amounts of protein, my performance suffers. I lose muscle mass. I injure myself more. I lose both volume and density. By biceps turn into fatceps.

Getting in shape is not something that happens magically, and obviously any number I throw out there is directional. 1g/lb is the general consensus among amateur athletes and BBers - some do more, some do less. Ultimately, you need to figure out what works for you through trial and error.

Fixating on the actual number is silly because it takes away from the original point - i.e. do not try and lose weight; instead, try and lose fat while keeping muscle. And that requires eating adequate protein and weight lifting.

How is that cheating? I mean, I did mention in my original post (I am the OP, btw) that getting in shape is driven by diet. If you are serious about getting in shape, adequate protein is needed for recovery. Besides, there's a difference between fat loss and weight loss. Ideally, you want to lose your fat while keeping the muscle. And keeping (or building) the muscle entails working out and eating right, which requires you to consume adequate amounts of protein.

That means you have to be cognizant of what you consume, and translates into making smart dietary choices. Does it have to be the same every day? No. Do you need to be good every day? No. However, at least on a weekly basis, you should aim to consume at your calorie goals and ensuring that you're hitting your macros.

A lot of things (e.g. satiety) are driven by nutritionally suboptimal foods â" e.g. you eat a box of candies chips and you're still hungry, when some fat, protein, and hydration would have filled you up. And part of the problem is the easy availability of these nutritionally lacking foods.

People also equate certain processed foods with eating healthy, such as having a bottle of fruit juice as being the same as eating a fruit, which is not the case. The fiber and the satiety will mean that you will actually consume fewer calories while getting fiber with a fruit, while a juice is just liquid calories, mostly sugar. In the real world, if a bottle of apple juice contains four apples, you will rarely *eat* four apples. You will probably stop at one. But by drinking the juice, you're consuming more calories without the other nutritional benefits (e.g. no fiber).

Making sure that you eat adequate amounts of the right things, including fruits, nuts, and vegetables, will also mean that you're hitting the right nutrients â" protein, fiber, vitamins, omega 3s and so on.

And that actually entails making intelligent food choices. Some of those foods will definitely be boring (I mean, a grilled salmon salad over a pizza? steak tips over a hamburger? Oatmeal and eggs over potatoes and bacon?).

This is a great point. I have been tracking my calories on LiveStrong (and some people prefer My Fitness Pal or other similar websites) for several years now.

And I am always conservative in terms of my activity, and never subtract calories (i.e. oh, I ran for four miles today, let me eat extra calories). Given that the estimations for burned calories are exaggerated and the estimations for consumed calories are downplayed, that's a recipe for disaster.

Nope. Hitting the gym every day is a recipe for injury -- as with anything, your body needs to rest, recover, and actually "build" muscle.

Secondly, you can easily hit those numbers without any supplements.

Just choose your diet carefully (grilled salmon, grilled skinless chicken breast, oatmeal, egg whites, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese and so on). Obviously, this need not be the entirety of your diet, but building your diet around protein-rich sources gives you more flexibility in terms of how many calories you have left over to eat relatively unhealthy food (or, if you will, nutritionally less dense food).

As far as the protein requirements go, it may be broscience, but it is one that works. I am a rock climber -- I climb fairly regularly (at least once a week), and hit the gym at least once a week. However, I am never active more than 4 days a week. My most active weeks include two days of rock climbing and *maybe* two days of intense weight lifting. No more. And yet, I need a minimum of that level of protein to retain muscle mass. Otherwise, I see a deterioration in performance, in stamina, and a loss of volume.

I'm sorry, would you rather that I choose bags of Doritos instead?

I mean, of course I choose foods that are nutritionally rich. You may not realize this, but being healthy comes down to dietary choices (which was the point of my original post).

And btw, outside of the protein shake, none of what I'd mentioned is a "bodybuilder's" food. Hell, I can swap out the protein shake with three slices of pepperoni pizza at 900 calories and 40g of protein. And you'll land at 2000 calories for the day and 150g of protein.

You don't have to go kale all the way, but you certainly need to choose your foods carefully. You can't have every meal be unhealthy and wonder why you're not losing weight. Something's gotta give.

If you want that pepperoni pizza, you'd better have salads and egg whites as your meal the rest of the day.