Yes, clearly I was unaware of this fact when I made this comment. Because, you know, it's an all-or-nothing world where people offering product features tell their users to do it their way or stick it.

If you cannot offer a helpful suggestion when someone questions something they aren't comfortable with, perhaps you should cut down the snark and just ignore the comment.

Indeed. That is a great idea. Thank you.

Really? Some of us really enjoy our books -- as someone who has a personal library with ~4,000 books, I would be appalled if I had to write on any of their pages with a pen.

Not because I am planning on selling any of them, but because to me, I just see it as damaging the book.

A good many of them are autographed or antiquarian books, and the last thing I'd ever want to do is sign them with a *pen*.

I find the whole deal oddly disturbing -- maybe it's just me as a bibliophile, but writing on a book sounds like a sacrilege.

WHO recently halved its recommended sugar intake for adults, from 10 percent of total daily calories 5 percent. For an average adult, that's about 25g.

Your average (12 oz) can of coke contains 39g of sugar. Your 44 oz coke or Pepsi contain about 154g of sugar. That is not 150% of your recommended daily amount -- that's more than six days' recommended daily intake.

You owe me a coffee! :-)

I am going to offer a slightly different perspective.

I work for a management consulting firm, and we hire (arguably) some of the smartest people in the world who are usually good with both critical thinking and with the soft skills. It sounds like an easily accomplished task, but it really is not. Some of the most analytical and quantitative people in the world also come with personality quirks that makes them unsuitable for most client facing professions.

I have also had my fair share of experience interacting with CEOs, both big and small. And it has been my experience that among successful people (the way society values success today anyway), there are two key elements to being at the top.

One is strategic thinking. Not everyone is capable of it, no matter what people may think. Some people are great at focusing on one problem; others are capable of bringing in disparate problems together and finding holistic, long-term solutions. This is a non-trivial task, and one with incredibly devastating consequences in the event of failure (and people do focus on failure, which is understandable, but discounting the success of social, political, and economic progress is disingenuous and silly). A good doctor is great at one problem, but cannot bring to bear the breadth of their experience to handle a disease outbreak, which has much wider consequences.

The second is capital. Modern society runs on capital. You would be staggered at just how much day-to-day credit companies use to run. If the cogs in the wheel were to stop, they will close their doors in a week. Take away the access to capital and you will be stuck at status quo. And identifying which ideas and which cogs in the wheel deserve capital is also one of onerous responsibility.

And that is the real reason executives and people in financial services (capital) get paid as much as they do. It doesn't matter whether or not you are in private or public sector -- those jobs are incredibly demanding, not the least because the burden of responsibilities demands a far more diligent performance.

An entrepreneur can create new ideas, but to bring them to bear on market and to make a company successful requires a different kind of expertise. There's a reason even Google brought in Eric Schmidt as a CEO from the outside -- from having an IPO to exploring growth strategies, running a company is a rare and valuable expertise.

And I am pretty egalitarian (in that y'all muggles look the same), and yet, I would say that the value society places on strategic thinking and capital allocation is justified.

Now, is this sometimes done blindly, without regard to performance? Of course, and that is a structural problem (e.g. Wall Street). And are there other professions (e.g. scientists) who should get similar incentives, but do not? Of course, and that is a perception problem. But neither of those really discount the importance of the jobs many executives play.

And at the end of the day, there is certainly a trade-off. People in those jobs work with little sleep, work brutal hours, and find it difficult to make time for their family, let alone anything else. Most successful CEOs I know wakes up at brutally early hours (~4 am) and are stressed beyond repair. They trade a relatively structured, stress-free life for one that offers great risk with great rewards. And ultimately, that's what society rewards. No guts, no glory doc.

For every Associate at McKinsey or Goldman who burns through 80 hour weeks, there are others who settle for a 9-5 job with a cute barista girlfriend and play pool on the weekends. For every 20 year old who partied through college with debt, there are many, many others who scored perfect GPAs and had clearly defined goals in life. For every geek who started coding in middle school and dropped out and played Counter Strike, there is a kid who busted ass and made it in life. Intelligence only goes so far -- structure, planning, and hard work go a lot farther.

Whether or not you like it, success is cumulative -- and course correction is a lot harder later in life than it is earlier.

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

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.

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.