Y2HH

If you are active, working out -- and don't have a problem with gaining massive weight, just eat smart -- and that doesn't mean buy into gimmicks, etc. Water, gator aid, vitamin water, whatever -- the ones with calories will be easily burned off by an active person, especially if you drink it while riding a bike to/from wherever. Protein is a good supplement if you are looking to add muscle mass and you don't intake enough natural protein from food sources, meat, fish, etc. More than 1 gram per pound of body weight is overkill unless you are into the extreme side of things. Vitamins are also good, so long as you don't combine the wrong ones and understand the difference between water soluble and fat soluble, as fat soluble overdoses can be very dangerous. I recommend food based vitamins as your body won't reject them as fake quite as easily. If you take a vitamin and notice your urine is neon yellow, it means your body isn't bothering to use it...that color is the expensive vitamin you took earlier that day, being flushed down the toilet. I stress above all else -- consistency is key. Crash diets and fad diets do NOT work -- you will eventually fall off of them as they are impossible to sustain depending on your time constraints/location/etc. Learn alternative exercises you can do on the fly without equipment if you are unable to get into the gym or follow your standard routine that day. This also applies to fad foods (note I said, FAD, not FAST), drinks, and other such things. Second biggest point is to learn and understand your own body, your body type, and what exercise(s) work for YOU. Be realistic with this, not everyone is built the same, so results will vary. My friends don't like working out with me because with very little effort, I see twice the results in half the time they see. Those of us like this are often called mesomorphs, I can understand why that's hard for some to accept, especially if you work out with a person like this side by side, doing the same exercises...but that's the way it is. Just because running works really well for some guy you know doesn't mean it will work as well for you. This applies to all facets of exercise, from lifting to cardio.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1248...ODcyNDg1Wj.html I'm sure this has already been posted -- but it shows the rules in place aren't enough. Clip from the story: "The Commodity Futures Trading Commission plans to issue a report next month suggesting speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices -- a reversal of an earlier CFTC position that augurs intensifying scrutiny on investors. In a contentious report last year, the main U.S. futures-market regulator pinned oil-price swings primarily on supply and demand. But that analysis was based on "deeply flawed data," Bart Chilton, one of four CFTC commissioners, said in an interview Monday."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) Those things exist in pretty much all deliverable commodities. In fact, I am not able to think of one that doesn't off of the top of my head. Yet they were still able to manipulate the oil market, despite these rules? Then tighten them down because that should show the rules in place aren't enough.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) Commodities have never had the uptick rule. That is purely an SEC and stock rule. Besides that what else are you talking about that isn't already being done? Sorry I didn't mean to apply uptick to the commodities discussion (that's a short rule, which is supposedly being reenacted), I mean overall regulations need to be checked/rechecked and adapted to modern times in all markets. If they didn't, they wouldn't be talking about it right now, yet they are...so who knows. Maybe we should just leave it all alone, and let whatever happens happen. I mean, who am I to complain anyway, I've made money in the market -- even in the downturn I made money...so meh. The commodities market needs to be capped, IMO, in how much you can buy/hold if you have no intention of ever taking delivery. I'm also not a commodities expert, I don't trade in that market, actually, I don't trade at all...I invest. I buy and hold...and I make money doing it, slowly, but I'm happy with that.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) HuffPo- I'm sure the government knows what it's doing, they're really good with numbers and selling things.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) Anyone over the age of 12 riding their bicycle on the sidewalk should get an instant stick to the spokes. Though I'm not a parent, I doubt I'd want my 13 year old riding his/her bike in the streets these days...people are idiots, they don't pay attention to the road (they're busy texting), and just...hell no to that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) You mean like having position limits on commodities, and forcing anyone with concentrated positions to report those to the CFTC on a daily basis? We have tons of regulations, just for these reasons. The idea that people with little amounts of money are going to be equal with people who have tons is impossible still. As many regulations as there are, there needs to be more, especially in the commodities market where it comes to food and energy. I'm again, not asking for the playing field to be leveled out or equaled. I think those with more should get more, as they risk mjore. I merely want these the big boys watched as to prevent manipulation, I want the uptick reinstated, etc.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:52 PM) Did you have permission from kap to use the term kaperbole™ and subscribe to the methods? Technically it should be typed with the trademark after it. Actually though people only do that to kap and sometimes he does it on purpose to f*** with people. I don't have permission, no. I hope he doesn't sue me for subscribing to his methods. I plan on creating a splinter faction of Kaperboleism that will be more radical/extreme. I'm thinking Y2Kaperboleists Anonymous.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) Kaperbole is a word he made up to describe his own actions, you know. I don't know if that's true or not, can you show me a scientific poll for proof? I'm kidding...I'm kidding. I didn't know that, but still...it's no longer a word he uses to describe his own actions, but a word commonly tossed out around here when anyone disagrees with anyone elses views. I consider myself a staunch Kaperboleist, btw.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) $100B = pimple on an elephant's ass. GMAB. OOOOOOOOOOH COMPROMISE! What's really happening? $100B goes to the Blue Dog districts in some other bill. Before anyone beats me too it, allow me ample time to use the following words on what you just said: Kaperbole Straw-something or other Scarecrows Blah.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:38 PM) It's just usually cookies aren't animate objects with rusty aluminum bats beating the s*** out of things and bleeding when you eat them. Health care cookies aren't like regular cookies. They have powerups.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:37 PM) Here's an angle that a lot of people probably haven't thought of, and I have over the last week or so, anal accountant that I am. How much reserves have to be kept to pay out insurance claims? That is another HUGE reason they want their hands on this, is because there's a lot of real money tied up for "reinsurance" and the government wants it in their coffers. Hello, William Buffet, Obama supporter. You don't think he's going to get a huge chunk of this deal? Why? Where's the money...? Did you see they suddenly have a new plan in action and it somehow lowered the cost by over 100B? I'd like to know how. heh

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:24 PM) It was just a really, really bizarre paragraph. It was...it was just an example. People tend to call things "cookie jars" and when you stick your hand in the jar, you're looking for a cookie -- that cookie can be anything, money, sweets, whatever. I think you can put 2 and 2 together here and see what I meant.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:20 PM) WTF WTF what? You don't think the government sees the healthcare industry as another stream of income? Give me a break.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) Your idea of balanced is impossible. We will never have everyone with an equal amount of money. That is just pie in the sky right there. It's also the socialist dream. I'm not asking for it to be balanced like that, I'm asking for proper regulation to make sure those with the means can't abuse the system such as they have and do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) No. In fact, if you look carefully at this thread, you won't see me disagreeing with kap at all. I've suggested a few alternatives, but I don't agree with either party's stance right now, which I think I've made clear. I say that because... I think Kap, and myself to some degree, are going to extremes to make a point. People are taking these extremes in a very literal sense, which is their right, but the point is that neither of us (from what I gather here) trust the government to run health care any differently than it runs everything else -- right into deficit and right into the ground. Healthcare is the cookie jar the government has never been able to get near -- every time they've tried to reach in for some, the bad ass cookies inside beat it down with a rusty aluminum bat...but they smell blood in the water now. Why now? Because, the people have turned on healthcare unlike ever before...so strike while the irons hot. They realize the cookies overflowing in that jar are made of money...and they want it. All of it. Regardless of what happens after they get it. Of course, they're doing it all in the name of good. They're doing it to SAVE the people. To SAVE the children.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) Yep. I just bend over and take everything government and shove it right up my ass and smile! Because, they are the only ones that can take care of us. You are a voice of reason.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) kap has gone bye-bye. Why, because he has strong feelings against big government? Or because you (and a lot) of people here disagree with him? I'm happy he joined this conversation, I was feeling alone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) The playing field is way more balanced today than it was even 20 years ago. For example, do you think a Hunt Brothers situation could happen today? The Hunt Brothers came close, but failed even back in that day, and probably taught a lot of people a valuable lesson. It would be impossible today because the amount of money that's out there, and the world economy is involved in the US markets, too, making it even harder. I still don't see the playing field as balanced. I see it as more open in that anyone from any income range can be involved, but balanced...no, still far from balanced. Guys like Warren Buffett (one of many) can strike special deals with companies to buy a %, with downside guarantees...whereas a normal person cannot, that's not balanced as far as I'm concerned.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 10:59 AM) And what the Democrats are proposing are FLAT OUT LIES. And that was my point. You want to charge that the GOP is "flat out lying", so are the Democrats. "You will not lose your coverage if you're happy with it". Lie. "Take a painkiller (if you're too old)" - Barack Obama "You'll have choices for your health care". Lie. (at least not like today). I can go on and on, but I'm disingenuous. You are my Soxtalk hero.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Historically, this is not true at all. There have been long periods of time where markets were dominated by the few. The playing field really didn't get leveled until the emergence of internet trading and the crash of the price of trading. Trading in general is more wide open to the masses than it has ever been. I don't mean that at all, the fact that anyone can be on the field is one thing -- that doesn't mean it's level. What I meant is that when it comes to commodity speculation, the big hedge funds (with billions in their cash coffers) weren't involved until the last few years. I'm not sure when they jumped on board, but I know they did. At one time they capped their involvement in these markets to something like 5% of their total funds, but when they realized what they could do, that number expanded a lot, and then we had them pouring billions into commodity speculation. 50 guys playing with 10,000$ that were once unable to get on the field is one thing -- they can now freely trade in a very easy and affordable manner...that's not my point. My point is when one of those 50 comes in and throws 2,000,000,000 on the table, the playing field isn't level. Just because you can play doesn't mean it's balanced. Even rich traders (individuals) don't speculate with billions...whereas hedge funds started to do just that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 08:46 AM) Well, one thing that I think you (and many) are missing here, is that price speculators are not at all new. In fact, the market doesn't work well without them. They have been there from the beginning. The methods and instruments have changed, technology has changed, but the players in the market really have not. I forgot to add something to this. I agree with this point and I do realize that they're not new. I think the system worked fine like that until the HUGE hedge fund institutions started getting involved. We are no long talking some millions here, but billions upon billions they were doing this with, and that caused the huge swings that we hadn't really seen in such markets before they entered it. Essentially they took a level playing field and came in with so much money, it was no longer level, and this gave them too much control.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) I've never claimed that. I know it was a stupid joke on my part. Just from personal experience related to this whole matter, my point of view is and will be biased, obviously I'm skeptical of polls and whatnot when it comes to this subject, as I see a lot of manipulation on all sides from all things related to heath care. Especially considering I'm industry insider in relation to this, I see the type of manipulation that goes on. Obviously the system is broken, I think everyone agrees on that. I simply have no faith the government (of all things) can take a system that's too expensive and make it cheaper while maintaining or improving quality. I see no quality coming from this -- none -- regardless of them saying so over and over. I see it as an obvious case of tell the lie enough and it becomes the truth. I just don't care to see an already bankrupt government spend even more money -- I think their current tab (best/lowest estimates) is like 1T over 10 years for this?! Who here believes our government will actually keep within that budget constraint? Even if passed at 1T total -- I bet that number balloons to something much MUCH higher...and we can add even more deficit and debt to our bankrupt ledgers which will undoubtedly lead to more soda/liquor/tobacco/water/food/walking around taxes, in addition to higher income tax, on top of some other form of tax. I'm still waiting for the tax on taxes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) I'm really disappointed in the Journal's article on this, purely from a perspective of having writers write about commodities who don't seem to know commodities. Look at these two paragraphs: First of all, this basically says... before, there were speculators, and now, there are SPECULATORS. LOL. Second, what indices are they talking about? Do they mean equitized commodity funds like Powershares? Do they mean actual exchange-traded index futures, which aren't commodities anyway? Do they mean true indicies of futures contracts - and if so, where are they seeing those listed? I'm not really sure what that article was trying to say, but the commodities market has become a gamblers paradise...only in this paradise, with enough money, it's possible to actually gain some form of pricing control. The original intent of trading commodities was the end goal of actually using them. Speculators are people trading these commodities without ever intending to take possession, but just flipping it off for a profit to a person/company who actually needs/wants to take possession. For example, Hershey or Tootsie Roll will have traders in the cocoa pit -- their job is to buy cocoa contracts (and accept delivery) to use in their chocolate products. Their goal is to keep the cocoa affordable so their product costs don't spike, without allowing one of the many competitors to get too much of the current market, as that would spike prices. Remember all of these people intend on taking delivery of these contracts for the physical cocoa. Speculators came into this game realizing it'd be REALLY easy to make money without having to actually do anything in terms of creating a product. Their thought process went like so -- with enough money, they can go in and buy up a ton of contracts, and then resell them to people who need them since we are talking about a finite product. There is only so much cocoa to be harvested, so they have no choice but to buy it if they want to keep making their products...who cares if the price of chocolate rises and the consumer on the other end get f***ed over by really expensive chocolate bars...we got ours! For a while this worked, because it added liquidity to the markets -- but when the really big guys caught on it went haywire. As I see it, that's why they did in the oil market...because where people would probably stop buying chocolate bars if they cost 4$+ each -- they can't/won't just stop driving, as most of them HAVE TO DRIVE in order to work. It was perfect. Now I may be a little off on some of my thinking here, but not by much, IMO.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 07:35 AM) Correct - its not. If a buyer and seller will agree on a price, then by nature its not illegal. But I agree with SS, if these traders were actually able to manipulate prices over the long term (beyond single contract periods), which would be an impressive feat, then they should indeed be prosecuted. The article's vague description of the use of indices is sort of bizarre, though. Seems to have been written by someone without a good understanding of those markets. That description could mean all sorts of things. Now this is something we can agree on. I've been in the market almost 10 years (not a long time in terms of experience) but two of the worst things I've witnessed was the removal of the uptick rule (shorts betting on falling stocks), and then speculators who would drive the price of a commodity to obscene levels. Internet based trading has made performing things that were once impossible almost too easy -- when you see regular middle class people playing the speculation game it's when you know it's too easy. It's almost like gambling, only they aren't the ones controlling the swing -- someone else is -- and if they happen to get lucky they get to ride the wave, if not they're one and done. For a while, what they were doing was buying up oil contracts right before inventory counts -- when these are purchased they are considered out of inventory even though they never actually move -- and when the inventory counts would come in low, the prices would artificially rise -- then they'd dump those contracts back onto the market and others buying into the hype would buy them. Repeat this process. It's a process that feeds upon itself not unlike short selling without an uptick rule -- as the price cascades down, automatic covers are triggered and the selling spree feeds upon itself, just in the opposite direction of what they were doing with the commodities market. I think either method of trading is evil. Betting on a stock losing value is evil as far as I'm concerned -- just as I view pumping up commodity prices to be evil, but even more vile as commodities are things people need to survive, like food, gasoline, etc. Anyway, I don't want to get too long winded here, a lot of this stuff is convoluted and complicated, and it's how they've gotten away with it for so long -- the rules in place that oversee these types of things are full of holes, and people with money have the means to maneuver the system.