wilcopops

On 6/22/2019 at 12:32 PM, VincentRJ said:

Of course it's subjective. All people are subjects. All people are individuals. All individuals are different, to some degree, in respect of their genetics, their metabolism, their tendencies, their strengths and weaknesses, their lifestyles, and so on.

 

When people decide to lose weight, they should use their nous and their commonsense to determine 'what for them' means eating too much. This is why 'counting calories' or buying some other person's prescribed and marketed diet often doesn't work.

 

If you decide to lose weight merely for reasons of appearance, then you are more likely to fail. However, if your main motivation for losing weight is because you have realized that your overweightedness is an indication of a bad diet and/or a bad lifestyle which will have inevitable health consequences sooner or later, then you are more likely to succeed by using the basic principle that 'energy expended must exceed energy (or food) input' in order to lose weight.

 

Theoretically, if one had the money to pay for a complete analysis of one's genome and metabolic system, a specific diet could be formulated that might be more effective than the general weight-losing diets that are marketed, but not necessarily because the science is not settled.

 

A far more sensible approach is to first begin with inquiries about the types of food that constitute a healthy and wholesome diet. Then choose the specific foods, from that list, that you enjoy or can at least tolerate. For example, some people might dislike the taste of raw celery or broccoli, even though they are very healthy. You don't have to make things unnecessarily difficult for yourself. There are lots of choices of healthy and wholesome foods.

 

The next step is to determine objectively whether you are eating too much, by weighing yourself regularly on the same scale. Since we are not robots with a fixed amount of energy expenditure, there's no need to weigh yourself every day. Although it might be interesting to do so if you were fasting for several days.

 

My recommendation is, weigh yourself at least once a week. If you don't see any weight reduction after a week or so, on your reduced diet, then simply eat less, and/or exercise more, and/or change the mix in your diet. It's not rocket science.
 

It would appear you don't know what subjective means... (sound of Vincent rushing to Google)

Laos is fine and hassle free.....you need the "car passport" or purple book from DLT... with the correct documents it takes about an hour and costs about 250 baht.

Make sure you fill in, stamp and keep your temp export docs at the Thai border or you'll have problems coming back in from LAOS.

Get insurance for LAOS at the crossing. There are  several crossings you can make.

Laos now only allows Thai vehicles in for 30 days.

I've never driven my car into Cambodia as the whole situation is incredibly dodgy from a legal point of view.

However there are people on this forum who seem to do it on a regular basis.

Apparently you aren't allowed to exit the Cambodian province you enter by.....which makes travelling pretty illegal.

I would also guess insurance is a bit dodgy or non existent.

10 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Why would you attribute such an idiotic comment to me?  I have NEVER said anything even remotely like that?? Get your facts straight!

 

 

Blame the quote facility on TV, I couldn't care less who the messenger was, the message itself is still nonsense.

23 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

it's not possible for someone to put on weight without eating too much, because that would defy the laws of physics.

 

This is a false premise.

It includes the phrase "eating too much" - this is subjective and reveals that the poster is not thinking clearly but allowing prejudice to cloud their judgement.

To ut on weight you must EAT - as mass requires mass, it doesn't just materialise - that is the physics.

"eating too much" is subjective.

Many people seem to have varying rates and efficiencies of metabolism and others have eating disorders.

It is also datable on how much is actually "too much" or "overweight".

Very large people who exercise a lot can be much healthier than someone who is "thin" "slim" or underweight or even "normal" if they persistently follow fad diets and do little or no exercise....or even the wrong exercise - So much of health and weight is masked by "cosmetic" considerations or pseudo-science

6 hours ago, Tug said:

Any idiot with a speed boat could do it nothing high tec about it

That's not what Trump is saying....however the "idiot" part fits in with US capability

Trump is claiming that only Iran is capable of such a "sophisticated" operation.

Surely the USA  and Israel could do this too?

As noted earlier on, this thread has turned into a litany of pseudo-science and ignorance fueled by a thick smattering od OCD.

The simple fact that people are so unable to self analyse or diagnose that they clutch at fads and diets, claiming they work, yet end up trying to explain how they put on weight again.......which just shows none of these diets..... not a single one actually works.

It must be remembered that K. PREMCHAI is just one of many hi-so Thai people who seem to think that the law applies in a different way to themselves.

Many we never hear of as they are correct in their belief ...... we can see that although Premchai is been given a hard time, the authorities are having a devil of a time making a pretty clear cut case stick.

Far from being an example of justice at work it shows how it still is balanced heavily in favour of the rich and well connected.

To educate you need a working education system with a modern uniform plan. Unfortunately Thai secondary and tertiary education is fixed firmly in the 19th century.

Another major part of the problem is that the hierarchical nature of Thai society prevents "mere engineers" or any skilled workers from bring paid competitive salaries.....so wheres the incentive?

I'm surprised you realise how unscientific that would be.

Im surprised 

I have news for you...... the weather doesn't actually know the date nor can it count days .....you might want to look at more than one source too.

You are just looking at a set of figures that confirm the southeast wet season and northeast monsoon extra wet  patch.

Samui has a double wet season. Like the rest of Thailand it starts around May and continues to the beginning of November. But then with the turn around of the monsoon from the Southwest to Northeast, whilst most of the rest of the country enters the cool dry season, Samui gets its 2 wettest months as the NW monsoon picks up rain over the Gulf and drops it on the island.

Outside then, May is traditionally the 3rd wettest month and the wet continues onwards after that.

This year has been one of the hottest and driest on record. However that is no guarantee about the rest of the year.

Rain on Samui is seldom universal, it can be very much localised, however the incidences of flash flooding, power cuts, water supplies and internet cut off tend to increase as the island infrastructure struggles to cope.

The sea visibility is often restricted by run off which is virtually uncontrolled and beaches can beget damaged.

You will however certainly see the sun.....just be prepared to take cover at short notice.

On 6/7/2019 at 11:14 AM, mfd101 said:

Shouldn't be a problem while you're snorkelling.

Water visibility is often impaired during the rainy season. However local pollution often masks that.

2 hours ago, mikebell said:

Equivalent to three years in Chiang Mai.

Crop burning versus petrochemical waste, fumes spills illegal waste disposal, traffic pollution etc.... the choice is yours....

Where can one my viagra/cialis/kamagra on Koh Samui?

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

We have freedom of speech here in the UK. Just as the First Amendment to the US constitution guarantees the same.

Such a grossly misinformed comment, it could have been uttered by Trump himself.

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

Freedom of speech does not include freedom to harass people infringe on the rights of others and or cause a public nuisance

And what laws do you think you are citing and in which country?   .... or are you just making it upas you go along?

Very likely to swamp the 3 changwats in population, traffic and pollution. 

My perspective is that most expats are blissfully unaware of what is about to happen.

Trump could help to unite the UK ...... Half the UK are Brexiteers and Half are Remainers, but one thing that could unite the nation is the majority on both sides have a passionate loathing  for Trump

The most wonderful thing is that Trump thought the crowds were CHEERING him - - - in the meantime the Mall ws completely deserted for his entrance......... he can't even put 2 + 2 together!

How about his theory on a "wall"" for N. Ireland!!!????

He is such an embarrassment to his fellow countrymen.

On 6/4/2019 at 2:27 PM, Baerboxer said:

So the neo-communist, Muslim radicals, and anti White brigade are joining forces to protest because they don't like someone or his politics.

 

Wonder what the reaction of these hypocrites would be if someone produced a cartoon blimp of Xi, Madura, the Saudi King, the Iranian leaders etc etc.

 

Trump may well be a dodgy businessman, up to every trick in the book and have some strong political views that those who don't support him find offensive. But so is just about every other politicians and political leader these days. Especially the champagne socialists pretending to represent the masses.

You seem a little confused. Trump is a friend of the Saudis for a start.

however one has to note the the continues use of DDT in Thailand is very disconcerting.

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Are you sure? I remember many years ago coming across an Australian study from the 'Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research' organization ( CSIRO ), which explained how plants produced their own toxic substances to deter insect and bacterial attacks, and I wondered at the time whether such natural toxins could be just as harmful, and perhaps even more harmful to human health, than the recommended limit of synthetic pesticide residue.

 

It occurred to me that the application of synthetic pesticides would prevent the plants from producing their own natural pesticides, and that provided the synthetic pesticide was not overused, there might be no health advantage of the so-called 'organic' product.

 

Revisiting this issue right now, I found some interesting scientific opinions which are very relevant. The following Scientific American article summarizes the situation quite well.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/natural-vs-synthetic-chemicals-is-a-gray-matter/?redirect=1

 

"The purpose of this post is to briefly discuss the most common misunderstandings about natural and synthetic chemicals:
Misconception 1: Synthetic chemicals are more toxic than natural chemicals.
Misconception 2: Organically grown food is better for you because it’s all natural.
Misconception 3: Synthetic copies of natural chemicals are not as good for you."

 

Here's another article addressing the issue.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/06/13/9999-pesticides-we-eat-are-produced-plants-themselves-11415

 

"The word pesticide is misunderstood, nearly to the same extent as the word chemical. People have been led to believe, largely by the organic food industry and environmental activists, that pesticides are unnatural, dangerous, and do not belong in the food supply. But this defies a basic understanding of biology.

 

A pesticide is any chemical, natural or human-made, that is designed to kill another organism.
A paper co-authored in 1990 by the venerable Bruce Ames found that 99.99% of the pesticides we consume in our diet are produced by the plants themselves. Given the popularity of organic food and the unscientific mythology underlying it, his findings are more relevant now than ever."

 

And yet another:
https://chem.uiowa.edu/sites/chem.uiowa.edu/files/people/shaw/150928 - JE - Bad Science Pesticides.pdf

 

"Origin of Fears
• Overuse of pesticides during early era of modern usage – Led to killing off unintended populations, increased resistance in insects, human health effects.
• Historic bans due to unanticipated consequences (e.g. DDT) have supported mistrust.
• Concerns that synthetic pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables cause cancer."
 

Everything now clear? ????
 

very true - modern farming actually provides produce that is of much higher quality and nutritional value than anything produced 100 years ago.........

13 hours ago, robblok said:

Sure but if you start to include pesticides and fertilizer you pretty much cover everything that is grown. That is what wave hunter implied. Personally I don't have a problem with freezing drying baking and heating. (in most cases)

I don't think you understand the food industry, processing is quite a defined state.

the industry  tries to reduce the presence of pesticides and other residues.

Processing is the way most food is treated before you buy it.

If you are worried about unwanted chemicals etc you need to use a different vocabulary.