LANDIS! Lying?



Bill Sornson wrote:
> Sojourner wrote:
> >> And do you even fully believe Lance's cancer survival stories? Like
> >> overcoming BRAIN cancer?

> >
> > Firstly, it was testicular, not brain, cancer.

>
> It spread throughout his body, including brain, lungs and lymph nodes IIRC.


Yup, but it was testicular cancer that spread.

http://tcrc.acor.org/lance.html

Sojourner
 
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]>
wrote:


>
>I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended it
>after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is high?
>Bill Baka


Well, thanks for sharing.


Life is Good!
Jeff
 
On 1 Aug 2006 07:43:02 -0700, "Sojourner" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> And do you even fully believe Lance's cancer survival stories? Like
>> overcoming BRAIN cancer?

>
>Firstly, it was testicular, not brain, cancer.
>
>Of course, that is the part of the body that most men seem to think
>with, so maybe that's a moot point.
>
>Secondly, this wasn't faked. Only a whacko conspiracy theorist would
>think that dozens of medical personnel would risk their licenses, the
>reputation of the hospitals for which they work, and their professional
>reputations by lying about a high-profile medical case. Or that such a
>deception could possibly be carried of - for YEARS - without somebody
>spilling it all to the public.


See that's how big the conspiracy is. They use the allegations of doping to
cover up the fact that he's been completely biochemically re-engineered from the
mitochondria up. He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
after WWII.

Ron
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 07:43:02 -0700, "Sojourner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> And do you even fully believe Lance's cancer survival stories? Like
> >> overcoming BRAIN cancer?

> >
> >Firstly, it was testicular, not brain, cancer.
> >
> >Of course, that is the part of the body that most men seem to think
> >with, so maybe that's a moot point.
> >
> >Secondly, this wasn't faked. Only a whacko conspiracy theorist would
> >think that dozens of medical personnel would risk their licenses, the
> >reputation of the hospitals for which they work, and their professional
> >reputations by lying about a high-profile medical case. Or that such a
> >deception could possibly be carried of - for YEARS - without somebody
> >spilling it all to the public.

>
> See that's how big the conspiracy is. They use the allegations of doping to
> cover up the fact that he's been completely biochemically re-engineered from the
> mitochondria up. He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
> biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
> after WWII.
>
> Ron


And they used those units to attack the WTC and the Pentagon...
 
RonSonic wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 07:43:02 -0700, "Sojourner" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> And do you even fully believe Lance's cancer survival stories? Like
> >> overcoming BRAIN cancer?

> >
> >Firstly, it was testicular, not brain, cancer.
> >
> >Of course, that is the part of the body that most men seem to think
> >with, so maybe that's a moot point.
> >
> >Secondly, this wasn't faked. Only a whacko conspiracy theorist would
> >think that dozens of medical personnel would risk their licenses, the
> >reputation of the hospitals for which they work, and their professional
> >reputations by lying about a high-profile medical case. Or that such a
> >deception could possibly be carried of - for YEARS - without somebody
> >spilling it all to the public.

>
> See that's how big the conspiracy is. They use the allegations of doping to
> cover up the fact that he's been completely biochemically re-engineered from the
> mitochondria up. He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
> biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
> after WWII.
>
> Ron


And they used those units to attack the WTC and the Pentagon...
 
RonSonic wrote:
>
> See that's how big the conspiracy is. They use the allegations of doping to
> cover up the fact that he's been completely biochemically re-engineered from the
> mitochondria up. He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
> biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
> after WWII.


Don't worry. We are the gubmint, and we know where you are. Don't
struggle when the black helicopters land on your lawn. Resistance is
futile. You will be assimilated.

Sojourner
 
In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
> biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
> after WWII.


You're on something...
And I'd like to see the elite troops storming a country on bicycles!
(BTW, the Swiss Army phased out the units using bicycles two years
ago...)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> Did ya see that Floyd was reported to have artificial Testasterone in
> him??


They said he rode like a robot... this could lead to a really, really
startling defense. The *real* reason the Mennonites live apart...

> CYA Floyd!!


As in adios, 'cause I don't think he's gonna come up with a way to
cover his, uh, retreat.

Offering the theory that I haven't seen elsewhere (surprise); several
beers, several shooters (let's say six or seven good stout
boilermakers); he passed out with the patch(es) on.

Also helps explain the copious water usage, ex-and internal, and the
alleged foul temper of the next day (the "you want more, etc". etc.
quote). --D-y
 
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:49:01 -0400, RonSonic <[email protected]>
wrote:

>See that's how big the conspiracy is. They use the allegations of doping to
>cover up the fact that he's been completely biochemically re-engineered from the
>mitochondria up. He's really an offshoot of a DoD project to produce
>biologically engineered warfare units based on technology taken from Nazi labs
>after WWII.


Combined of course with the alien DNA from the '47 Roswell event.


Jasper
 
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:38:29 GMT, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>PS: "Testasterone" -- hormone produced by driving a really fast Italian
>car?


That's testarosterone.

Jasper
 
Jeff Starr wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended it
>> after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is high?
>> Bill Baka

>
> Well, thanks for sharing.
>
>
> Life is Good!
> Jeff


That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to get
the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high?
I just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.
Bill Baka
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jeff Starr wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
> >> it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
> >> high? Bill Baka

> >
> > Well, thanks for sharing.
> >
> >
> > Life is Good! Jeff

>
> That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
> get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
> just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.


It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
100.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jeff Starr wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor recommended
>>>> it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he kidding? 201 is
>>>> high? Bill Baka
>>> Well, thanks for sharing.
>>>
>>>
>>> Life is Good! Jeff

>> That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me to
>> get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be high? I
>> just want to know if there are any opinions on what is good.

>
> It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
> factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people with
> known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target is below
> 100.


Whoa....
Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs cholesterol for
some things, such as brain function, so I don't know how low you can go.
I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the doctor thought that was
a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so maybe it is a moving target.
?????
Bill Baka
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
> >>>
> >>>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor
> >>>> recommended it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he
> >>>> kidding? 201 is high? Bill Baka


<snip>

> >> That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me
> >> to get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be
> >> high? I just want to know if there are any opinions on what is
> >> good.

> >
> > It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
> > factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people
> > with known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target
> > is below 100.

>
> Whoa.... Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs
> cholesterol for some things, such as brain function, so I don't know
> how low you can go. I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the
> doctor thought that was a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so
> maybe it is a moving target.


BIll, it is a moving target. As more data has become available from
longitudinal studies, the target for cholesterol and other blood lipids
has been progressively lowered in an attempt to prevent heart disease
and its consequences. But we may have been talking apples and oranges-
I was talking LDL; were you talking total cholesterol?

There was a *lot* of media coverage when the most recent set of
recommendations were released which pushed the target LDL level down to
100.

Checking the Surgeon general's Web site:

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp_iii.htm

"In all adults aged 20 years or older, a fasting lipoprotein profile
(total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol, and triglyceride) should be obtained once every 5 years.
If the testing opportunity is nonfasting, only the values for total
cholesterol and HDL cholesterol will be usable. In such a case, if
total cholesterol is „200mg/dL or HDL is <40 mg/dL, a followup
lipoprotein profile is needed for appropriate management based on LDL.
The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and CHD risk is
continuous over a broad range of LDL levels from low to high.
Therefore, ATP III adopts the classification of LDL cholesterol levels
shown in Table 2, which also shows the classification of total and HDL
cholesterol levels.

"Table 2. ATP III Classification of LDL, Total, and HDL Cholesterol
(mg/dL)

LDL Cholesterol
<100 Optimal
100-129 Near optimal/above optimal
130-159 Borderline high
160-189 High
„190 Very high
Total Cholesterol
<200 Desirable
200-239 Borderline high
„240 High
HDL Cholesterol
<40 Low
„60 High "
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:15:23 GMT, Bill Baka
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't even like to take Aspirin, although my doctor
>>>>>> recommended it after my Cholesterol came in at 201. Who is he
>>>>>> kidding? 201 is high? Bill Baka

>
> <snip>
>
>>>> That wasn't meant in that context. If 201 is high and he wants me
>>>> to get the total down to 150, what comes next year? 150 will be
>>>> high? I just want to know if there are any opinions on what is
>>>> good.
>>> It depends. For people without known heart disease or major risk
>>> factors, 150-200 is generally considered desirable. For people
>>> with known heart disease or major risk factors, the current target
>>> is below 100.

>> Whoa.... Isn't below 100 considered dangerous? The body needs
>> cholesterol for some things, such as brain function, so I don't know
>> how low you can go. I had 125 when I was about 27 years old and the
>> doctor thought that was a tad low, but that was back around 1975, so
>> maybe it is a moving target.

>
> BIll, it is a moving target. As more data has become available from
> longitudinal studies, the target for cholesterol and other blood lipids
> has been progressively lowered in an attempt to prevent heart disease
> and its consequences. But we may have been talking apples and oranges-
> I was talking LDL; were you talking total cholesterol?


201 total, ~45 HDL, forgot the triglycerides.
>
> There was a *lot* of media coverage when the most recent set of
> recommendations were released which pushed the target LDL level down to
> 100.
>
> Checking the Surgeon general's Web site:
>
> http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp_iii.htm
>
> "In all adults aged 20 years or older, a fasting lipoprotein profile
> (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL)
> cholesterol, and triglyceride) should be obtained once every 5 years.
> If the testing opportunity is nonfasting, only the values for total
> cholesterol and HDL cholesterol will be usable. In such a case, if
> total cholesterol is „200mg/dL or HDL is <40 mg/dL, a followup
> lipoprotein profile is needed for appropriate management based on LDL.
> The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and CHD risk is
> continuous over a broad range of LDL levels from low to high.
> Therefore, ATP III adopts the classification of LDL cholesterol levels
> shown in Table 2, which also shows the classification of total and HDL
> cholesterol levels.
>
> "Table 2. ATP III Classification of LDL, Total, and HDL Cholesterol
> (mg/dL)
>
> LDL Cholesterol
> <100 Optimal
> 100-129 Near optimal/above optimal
> 130-159 Borderline high
> 160-189 High
> „190 Very high
> Total Cholesterol
> <200 Desirable
> 200-239 Borderline high
> „240 High
> HDL Cholesterol
> <40 Low
> „60 High "


It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
much a person can do.
I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
win.
Bill Baka
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

> It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
> so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
> weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
> is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
> day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
> taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
> determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
> much a person can do.


When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145 or so
and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family history of
diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I resumed bicycling
and cut out the junk food I was eating and dropped my weight down to 195
by 1992. I started racing and raced for 9 years, winning one race (the
state time trial championship. I was the only person entered in my
category. Showing up is 100% of success). In about 1995 my *total*
cholesterol was 99 on a nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on
my bike; my doctor suggested getting it up a smidge. Since then my
total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of years ago, along with
my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds. Now I'm back down to 210
with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly enough, I am also back to a
mostly vegetarian diet as meat has really lost its appeal to me. So
it'll be interesting to see what the numbers are next time.

One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture that
surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low fiber
minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am convinced, 50% of
the problem. The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles. Yes, genetics
plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so I didn't include
it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50 points with diet change,
regular exercise and weight loss.

> I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
> keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
> becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
> win.


Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are indeed
right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next decade or
>> so to see where they go next. During the peak of my bicycling and lowest
>> weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of about 50. Without drugs that
>> is about the limit for me since I can't ride more than about 2 hours per
>> day on average. It sounds as if the Surgeon General would have us all
>> taking Lipitor or something along those lines. Since exercise and diet
>> determine Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
>> much a person can do.

>
> When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145 or so
> and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family history of
> diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I resumed bicycling
> and cut out the junk food I was eating and dropped my weight down to 195
> by 1992. I started racing and raced for 9 years, winning one race (the
> state time trial championship. I was the only person entered in my
> category. Showing up is 100% of success). In about 1995 my *total*
> cholesterol was 99 on a nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on
> my bike; my doctor suggested getting it up a smidge.


I think your doctor was right on that call. I don't know how low you can
go and still be healthy, but under 100 seems to be pushing it.

Since then my
> total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of years ago, along with
> my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds. Now I'm back down to 210
> with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly enough, I am also back to a
> mostly vegetarian diet as meat has really lost its appeal to me. So
> it'll be interesting to see what the numbers are next time.


Almost the same for me, except for the seafood / Chinese buffets that I
go to with a friend. I try to limit myself to Broccoli and white fish
with maybe some shrimp which should be good, but I think the stir fry
Wok oil ruins the low fat nature of the food. I definitely don't do
McFood places and never go out to dinner, much to my wife's dissent. I
try to only eat things that I can cook and control but due to having
kids around a certain amount of junk food gets through the door.
>
> One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture that
> surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low fiber
> minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am convinced, 50% of
> the problem.


There was a lot of debate going on a while back about high fructose corn
syrup being the worst offender but it is still present in almost
everything you can buy. I worked for a while in a place that made
Nestles power bars under a contract arrangement and they used that stuff
for sweetener by the tons, literally.

The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles.

Blame Pong and all the video games that have come with more computer
power. I am in the electronics industry and all the magazines are in
agreement that it is not business driving computing power, but gamers
who want more realism in their games. Hell, if they want realism, they
can get off their butts and go outside and do something.

Yes, genetics
> plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so I didn't include
> it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50 points with diet change,
> regular exercise and weight loss.


That works about the same with me. I find that at a particular weight I
can lower my cholesterol about 40 points by exercising even if I don't
lose weight. Losing weight for me is good up to a point, that being
where my wife tells me I look like a POW. That point, though, is where I
feel the best physically and it sure does not hurt when I take the bike
into the mountains.
>
>> I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it is to
>> keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I should plan on
>> becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some battles you just can't
>> win.

>
> Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are indeed
> right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.


No argument there, but I think it also has to do with the amount of
spontaneity that decreases with age. When I was 25 and someone suggested
something I would jump at the chance. Now it's more like "Let me check
my schedule.". I think part of the age thing is that you are always
having to balance out what you want to do with what you have to do.
Bill Baka
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> It will be interesting to follow these numbers over the next
> >> decade or so to see where they go next. During the peak of my
> >> bicycling and lowest weight I had a total of 175 and an HDL of
> >> about 50. Without drugs that is about the limit for me since I
> >> can't ride more than about 2 hours per day on average. It sounds
> >> as if the Surgeon General would have us all taking Lipitor or
> >> something along those lines. Since exercise and diet determine
> >> Cholesterol in addition to family background, there is only so
> >> much a person can do.

> >
> > When I was 31 and 250 pounds, my total cholesterol was around 145
> > or so and my non-fasting blood sugar was about 160. Oops. Family
> > history of diabetes and heart disease, better do something! I
> > resumed bicycling and cut out the junk food I was eating and
> > dropped my weight down to 195 by 1992. I started racing and raced
> > for 9 years, winning one race (the state time trial championship.
> > I was the only person entered in my category. Showing up is 100%
> > of success). In about 1995 my *total* cholesterol was 99 on a
> > nearly vegetarian diet and 200+ miles a week on my bike; my doctor
> > suggested getting it up a smidge.

>
> I think your doctor was right on that call. I don't know how low you
> can go and still be healthy, but under 100 seems to be pushing it.


I think it is. For one thing, our bodies use cholesterol to build
cells. Some neurotransmitters like serotonin are made in part from
cholesterol. So yup, there's a minimum level necessary. Now, as a risk
factor for me, my HDL tends to be a bit below what's considered
desirable (34-38). Well, two or three years ago, anyway.

> > Since then my total cholesterol has crept up to 113 a couple of
> > years ago, along with my weight which crept back up to 220 pounds.
> > Now I'm back down to 210 with a target of 200 pounds. And, oddly
> > enough, I am also back to a mostly vegetarian diet as meat has
> > really lost its appeal to me. So it'll be interesting to see what
> > the numbers are next time.

>
> Almost the same for me, except for the seafood / Chinese buffets that
> I go to with a friend. I try to limit myself to Broccoli and white
> fish with maybe some shrimp which should be good, but I think the
> stir fry Wok oil ruins the low fat nature of the food. I definitely
> don't do McFood places and never go out to dinner, much to my wife's
> dissent. I try to only eat things that I can cook and control but due
> to having kids around a certain amount of junk food gets through the
> door.


Well, oils are generally less bad for you than fats that are solid at
room temperature- saturated fats and hydrogenated fats or "trans fats."
The latter may be the worst of all- ironically, margarine tends to be
high in trans fats and may be less healthy for you than butter. And of
course most packaged/processed foods use hydrogenated fats because they
are shelf stable and don't readily go rancid.

> > One of the things we can do is to opt out of the toxic food culture
> > that surrounds us. The highly processed, high fat high sugar low
> > fiber minimal nutrient diet that most Americans eat is, I am
> > convinced, 50% of the problem.

>
> There was a lot of debate going on a while back about high fructose
> corn syrup being the worst offender but it is still present in almost
> everything you can buy. I worked for a while in a place that made
> Nestles power bars under a contract arrangement and they used that
> stuff for sweetener by the tons, literally.
>
> > The other 50% is our sedentary lifestyles.

>
> Blame Pong and all the video games that have come with more computer
> power. I am in the electronics industry and all the magazines are in
> agreement that it is not business driving computing power, but gamers
> who want more realism in their games. Hell, if they want realism,
> they can get off their butts and go outside and do something.


Absolutely! But also work life tends to be more sedentary, and getting
around is too- we sit in cars rather than use our legs. So we have
weird abominations like "health clubs" rather than just doing stuff to
have fun like sports and games and dancing. Heck, some of the best
"workouts" I've ever gotten were at Dead concerts. Three hours of
dancing like a madman (my wife is highly embarrassed to see me dance, by
the way. Probably rightly so).

> > Yes, genetics plays a role too but we can't control that factor, so
> > I didn't include it. Heck, my total cholesterol dropped 40-50
> > points with diet change, regular exercise and weight loss.

>
> That works about the same with me. I find that at a particular weight
> I can lower my cholesterol about 40 points by exercising even if I
> don't lose weight. Losing weight for me is good up to a point, that
> being where my wife tells me I look like a POW. That point, though,
> is where I feel the best physically and it sure does not hurt when I
> take the bike into the mountains.


People can be skinny and have high cholesterol. I know a skinny vegan
who has high cholesterol. I know more overweight people that eat steaks
and twice baked potatoes with extra sour cream and who have high
cholesterol, though.

> >> I think it may be age related, since the older I get the harder it
> >> is to keep the numbers down, regardless of exercise. Perhaps I
> >> should plan on becoming a 60 year old racer in a few years. Some
> >> battles you just can't win.

> >
> > Like the ones with time and gravity. ;-) But I think you are
> > indeed right, that cholesterol tends to increase with age.

>
> No argument there, but I think it also has to do with the amount of
> spontaneity that decreases with age. When I was 25 and someone
> suggested something I would jump at the chance. Now it's more like
> "Let me check my schedule.". I think part of the age thing is that
> you are always having to balance out what you want to do with what
> you have to do.


The joys of "responsibility..." :-(
 
Jasper-but this is true of 94.3 percent of all tour riders. then
there's the runner who runs out of deathvalley to the top of uhuhuh.
reading rodale's Road rider book? of the rider who mastered training
for the continental race? the wild concept here is take a look at the
slobs in walmart! but are you gonna run out of death valley to uhuhuh?
keep this in mind at all times
NEVER BUY A HORSE FROM A MENNONITE
 
Cyclists are the dirtiest of the dirty
Aug. 6, 2006. 01:00 AM
GARTH WOOLSEY
SPORTS COLUMNIST

Mamas, don't let your sons grow up to be cyclists.

They cheat (well, some of them). And they lie.

Floyd Landis was upset that his mother, Arlene, got dragged into his
Tour de France doping scandal. She's a Mennonite, light years removed
from the heat of the chase and the chill of the laboratory that
yesterday made it official — her son's name will live on in infamy.

Test positive? Then there's only three things to do — deny, deny and
deny.

Test confirmed? Then jack up the defence and lie, lie, lie.

Which is the greater sin? To try to get a competitive edge by using a
banned substance? Or when caught, to lie about it?

It took no time at all for his team to dump Landis following
yesterday's confirmation that wherever that extra testosterone in his
system came from it wasn't from his own, in-house glands.

The Phonak folks said he'd violated their team's code of ethics
(unwritten Rule No. 1: "Whatever the hell you do, don't get caught.")
The Tour de France unofficially rescinded his title faster than you
can say "abnormally high testosterone to epitestosterone ratio."

Of all athletes, pro cyclists are the most likely to be tested because
it has been established that of all athletes pro cyclists are the
dirtiest of dirty, devious in the extreme. They'd lie to their own
mothers. It's been proven.

Cycling has left a trail of syringe-filled garbage bags, even some
corpses, across the landscape.

Landis and his supporters have claimed he produced the high juice
count naturally. The scientists and most experts say "hooey."

Maybe Landis really believes in his own innocence. Maybe he's not
lying. Maybe.

But you pee in a bottle and face the consequences. He peed, he pays.

Sabotage is always a handy defence. Although, by its very nature, it
is difficult to prove (if it happened at all). Sprinter Justin
Gatlin's coach continues to claim that a massage therapist with a
grudge somehow rubbed a testosterone-laced cream into his athlete's
legs just before a doping test. That's his story and he's sticking to
it. (Deny, remember? Deny, deny.)

It's almost — not quite, though — refreshing to hear one of this
conspiratorial crew come clean, as did the Norwegian sprinter Aham
Okeke when he was caught using for the third time; he may be banned
for life. He's 36, so the end was nigh anyway. Now that he's been
caught, he admits he went to a doctor for testosterone after he
injured his thigh in June. "It was a desperate attempt," Okeke says.
"I thought I would miss the European Championships after being
injured. I can only blame myself. I'm sorry for all my teammates, my
family and my friends."

But especially sorry for himself, no doubt.

In the U.S., the Landis debacle will be seen in some quarters as more
of the Euro-centric crusade to discredit American cyclists. Couldn't
get Lance Armstrong, so got his protégé, etc. But the problems,
clearly, run deep and cross all borders. Cyclists have for decades
been at the cutting edge of cheating and ridding their culture of the
anything-goes attitude won't be easy.

The cycling authorities sound a lot like their counterparts in
baseball. For years, they've reaped the dividends that come with
phenomenal performances, treating rumours of wrong-doing with a wink
here and a nod there and denials all-around.

We live in a drug-saturated society, from every-day painkillers to
concoctions that perform miracles. All these years later Ben Johnson
is a Cheetah.

In war and commerce just about anything goes. In sports, though, there
remains this central, Ned Flander-esque idea that competition should
be about fairness and level playing fields, rulebooks that matter.

Call the notion naïve if you like, old-fashioned, but its worth
hanging on to.

The survey says ... Floyd is a fink. No word of a lie.