The Thread about Nothing....

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gplama
Ace final day at Bright.

How much do you reckon Gallagher weighs? Was the TT course flat?
Were you working for just masters team-mates, or 'young' team-mates, too?

Or did you tow guys to the bottom of Hotham after they shoved cash in your pocket? That's what I woulda done. :-)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by 531Aussie
How much do you reckon Gallagher weighs? Was the TT course flat?
Were you working for just masters team-mates, or 'young' team-mates, too?

Or did you tow guys to the bottom of Hotham after they shoved cash in your pocket? That's what I woulda done. :-)

68?

Not flat.

Team mate. Shove this 'young' masters thing fair up your [censored], we're all bike riders and I'm sick of defending age groups. I'm 35 so qualify for what was the original masters from day 0. [censored] to Cycling Tips if you want to debate it. (with all due respect) 🙂

Sprinters teams towed us to the base of Hotham. I slogged up to the faster sections of the climb and did what I could through to where it really went upwards sharply at the toll booth.

I see. Thanks.
I think I've made it clear that I'm not cool enough to hang out with the inner city latte set on Cycling Tips :-)

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by 531Aussie
I see. Thanks.
I think I've made it clear that I'm not cool enough to hang out with the inner city latte set on Cycling Tips :-)

that ain't nothin to be ashamed of either mate.

I don't have any interest in introducing myself to those city folk, until there's a 50kph crossy blowing somewhere in the south west of the state. [IMG]files.cyclingforums.comevil.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Yeah, the funny thing is, is that I've probably smashed 80% of them at some point
[IMG]files.cyclingforums.comembarrassed.pngOpen ↗[/IMG][IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG][IMG]files.cyclingforums.comnerd.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]
([censored])

Closer to 95%

More like 95% Nev. I hate showpony [censored].

Ok, 95% :-) ... why not? Ha

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gplama

68?

Not flat.

Team mate. Shove this 'young' masters thing fair up your [censored], we're all bike riders and I'm sick of defending age groups. I'm 35 so qualify for what was the original masters from day 0. [censored] to Cycling Tips if you want to debate it. (with all due respect) 🙂

Sprinters teams towed us to the base of Hotham. I slogged up to the faster sections of the climb and did what I could through to where it really went upwards sharply at the toll booth.

Playing devils advocate here, but if you want to race as a team you are meant to be racing in Men's A. How many other teams were there in Masters A?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by cheetahmk7

Playing devils advocate here, but if you want to race as a team you are meant to be racing in Men's A. How many other teams were there in Masters A?

rrraaaaaaaaaaant... 😉

CMD (5-6), Hampton(5?), TotalRush (4?), Total (2?), Euride (2), ZoomVideo (4), Us (3), probably a lot more I didn't see. Team racing within Masters has existed for years. If you've lined up for any of the VRS you'll know. In fact it is going to 'teams' next year. I honestly think it is a few years too early to worry about it. Nobody will aim for a 'teams' classification nor does it really predict the outcome.

We don't belong in A Grade Elite. We are not that good. We're not after NRS rides in 2014. Not to mention there is no room for another 50-60 riders in A Elite (or B for that matter). Leave those places to the young bucks who are going places. Or those who don't want to do Masters. The racing within Masters A this year was some of the best and safest around. Every single rider loved it. The only people banging on about it are those on the sidelines or not even on the sidelines. Do you see any of the Masters guys paying out on the 30yo+ in Elite? Nope. We support them giving it a crack! Same can't be said in return most of the time.

Can we flip the coin and start looking at those sub-par performances that are not worthy of an A Grade start? The common consensus is that if you can ride a bike then you should race A Elite. Focus on cleaning up A Grade to make it worthy of being called Elite. All this talk of the grading system, good or bad, is only ever spoken about in one direction, up. If you're coming in 30mins down in a 5hr event - or are consistently in the lower 10-15% - of all grades - then down you go to make room for the top 10-15% of those below you. Fight your way back up next year. Want to BE an A Grader? Earn it on the road. Not by agreeing with someone's opinion on the Internet.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Ma, do you have a view on this?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-03/survey-shows-patients-off-heart-drugs-after-abc-catalyst-program/5130670

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too. You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that.

Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matagi

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too. You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that.

Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

Nice reply. A lot of the so-called nonprofits or community services that have managed to get govt accreditation and money back when that was easier have very quickly gotten chockablock with uppity middleclass bureaucrats ([censored] that's a cnut of a word to spell, and I'm normally good at that) who should never have been allowed off the RTA front desk, or maybe if they were special, the library desk. And those useless knobs and their ilk now more or less run the country, or at least a lot of the public spiels about how we should be controlled.
You know, a bit like remember how it was four drinks for a bloke but two for a chick was considered reasonable daily, but now it's just two all round even for us fat blokes. Cnuts.

matagi said:

paulambry said:

Ma, do you have a view on this? abc.net.au5130670Open ↗

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too.  You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that. Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

paulambry said:

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

You can search Google Scholar or arXiv for research on the topic. It's all out there.

alienator said:

paulambry said:

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

You can search Google Scholar or arXiv for research on the topic. It's all out there.

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. :big-smile:

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Part 1 is still on the ABC site. It's grouse, especially the it all started by dodgy Ancel Keys.
abc.net.au3876219.htmOpen ↗
There are some interesting comments under the video, particularly by Dr Troy Stapleton

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Pauie get this book! You will love it.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Calories-Gary-Taubes/9781400033461?redirected=true&gclid=CMrO1Ib0k7sCFShepgodCn4ATQ

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matagi

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Ma, do you have a view on this?

abc.net.au5130670Open ↗

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too. You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that.

Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link?

I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

Well that's because there isn't really a definitive answer. There is an association, but the problem is that cholesterol per se is not the culprit. As with all things pertaining to the human body, the problem is multifactorial. There is evidence now suggesting inflammation has a far greater role - we even measure CRP (which is an inflammatory marker) as part of the stratification of risk.

As for "good" cholesterol vs "bad" cholesterol - the idiot that coined those terms should be shot. LDL cholesterol (or "bad" cholesterol) is manufactured by the human body. It's function is to deliver cholesterol to cells (and cells need cholesterol to keep their cell membranes fluid) so it is in fact essential. People are now starting to look at the glycation of lipoproteins as the culprit in atherosclerosis (even though this is not a new concept), which certainly has more merit than leaping up and down loudly proclaiming we should all be reducing our cholesterol levels below a certain magic number or we will all turn into solid blocks of atheroma.

Thanks Ma. That does seem to accord with some of the stuff I've read this year. And with the Catalyst program.

Jono L said:

paulambry said:

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. :big-smile:

Pauie get this book! You will love it. bookdepository.com9781400033461Open ↗

Cool. Thanks Jono. I've just read a few articles in Scientific American on those topics. A recent edition was entirely devoted to food... calories, diets, 'big fat lies' topics etc. Good stuff.