Cameroni

I tipped 100 Baht yesterday and instantly regretted it.

Once again you suck a new figure out of your thumbs, but you understand that the daily amount of fat you should consume is considerably higher than this, so your whole argument is kind of silly? Here are a few examples of suggested daily fat ranges for a low fat diet, based on different calorie goals: 1,500 calories: about 50 grams of fat per day 2,000 calories: about 67 grams of fat per day 2,500 calories: about 83 grams of fat per day https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-fat-to-eat#TOC_TITLE_HDR_5 So on a mid-range low calorie died I could have 2 burgers and still have room for a carrot cake.

Oh God, give me strength.

So you were ignoring the previous 234 posts, you lucky soul...😂

Make sure it has 23 g of fat, or you will die.

Now I feel like a burger for lunch. You guys are to blame for this.

I perfectly understood you meant minced meat. Why do you think I checked the fat values for a hamburger? It was obvious. The point is your figure for the meat did not check out. It was wrong. The correct figure was given, you accepted it, I accepted you want to add a slice of cheese then you get to 20%. No matter, this is still far, far below the reccomended intake for fat that you should eat even on a low calorie diet. Why are you even arguing about this? It's totally pointless.

You're in the wrong thread. This is the cheeseburger thread.

I quoted your post verbatim, so I don't see why you are confused. It's very simple. You gave the wrong percentage of fat for a hamburger. I corrected you. Then you fiddled the figures by including the cheese, which you previously said was not included but had to be added separately. You confused grams and percentages. Your quibbling about figures is not only wrong,, but totally pointless because the recommended daily intake is far in excess of the figure you're quibbling about. I'd sooner take nutrition advice from Ronald MacDonald than you, frankly. You clearly don't know what youi're talking about. Of course minced meat has saturated fat, it's not a soybean burger, is it? <deleted> nonsense.

No it won't. Putin can unleash a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but the US cannot reply against Russia, If they did it would be the end of the US. Putin knows this, and no doubt is more and more tempted to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

No, you didn't. You wrote this: So you originally argued that the meat in a burger already had 20% of fat. When I showed that this was wrong you then decided to include the cheese, to get to the 20%. I have over 20 years of training as a lawyer, and have read and drafted documents vetted by the London Stock Exchange, I can assure you my reading skills are up to scratch. Your nutritional value reading ability is not. As for the reccomended fat intake for normal adults, your figure is nonsense, you are again confusing percentages with grams. The actual daily reccomended amounts of fat for a low fat diet are: A standard low fat diet contains about 30% — or less — of its calories from fat (31Trusted Source). Here are a few examples of suggested daily fat ranges for a low fat diet, based on different calorie goals: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-fat-to-eat#TOC_TITLE_HDR_5 1,500 calories: about 50 grams of fat per day 2,000 calories: about 67 grams of fat per day 2,500 calories: about 83 grams of fat per day https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-fat-to-eat#TOC_TITLE_HDR_5 Obviously for a ketogenic diet it's even higher.

No, they are not. Obviously. Though I always did wonder why burgers are considered unhealthy, since they contained minced meat, tomato, onion and did not seem terribly unhealthy.

One second, you said 20% grams of fat in "cheeseburger meat". In hamburger meat there is 14% of fat. An average slice of cheese, yes, has 9 g of fat. So that would take you to 20% fat in a cheesburger. But since the reccomnded fat intake is 48 to 78 g of fat for a healthy diet this is not a problem. Your body needs fat. You could eat a cheeseburger and more fatty items and still be in the daily recommended amount of fat intake.

You brought the discussion back on topic, we found one item that is not good value in Thailand. Pizza. Personally, I like both NY style and Neapolitan pizza. The best I had was in L'Antica Pizzeria da Michele in London, which is Neapolitan but I had atrocious pizza in Italy, Venice and wonderful pizza in Cebu. You can get great pizza in NY and in London and Naples, that's not worth fighting about really. I would certainly think you have to enjoy your diet to be able to stick to it. Should you eat ten cheesburger a week, obviously not. If you eat one a week, will it cause you a heart attack? Unlikely.

Thanks for posting the line in dispute. No, these are not traditional health foods. Though they all sound delicious. Having said that, you can barbecue healthy meats in a Texas BBQ style, shrimp is not unhealthy unless prepared wrong, burgers we already had a look at in detail. The one really questionable food I see there is NY style Pizza, though I suspect he meant eating it in moderation as he clarified not to eat junk food all the time. I hear what you're saying, and I understand your objection. Surely it is all about "quantity" though? If you eat a cheesburger, let's say you do eat 29 grams of fat, so what? Remember you're supposed to eat 45–78 grams of fat each day for a healthy diet. The body needs fat. If you eat a slice or a third or half of a NY style pizza you're fine, if you eat one cheeseburger you're fine, if you eat one slice of Lasagna you're fine, if you eat a moderate amount of ribs, you are fine. It's all about quantity, ie dosage, surely?

He didn't make a mistake at all. The average fat content in a hamburger patty is not 20% fat. It's 20 g of fat. That's about 14% on an average sized burger. Sugar content is only 4.4 g, including the bun. Calories are 418. To make a burger healthier indeed you should indeed do it at home. How is he wrong in anything he said? https://www.verywellfit.com/hamburger-nutrition-facts-calories-and-healthier-swaps-4111280#:~:text=One hamburger contains about 20.9,fat like butter or oil.

Exactly right. The US Dollar (USD) Index (DXY) climbed into a fifth consecutive bullish day on Friday, driven higher by better-than-expected US Nonfarm Payrolls figures. Since hitting its lowest point in September, the index has been making higher lows, showing a change in market sentiment in favor of the dollar. If this continues, the DXY could aim for the 103.50-104.00 range, where the 200-day EMA is a major hurdle. https://www.fxstreet.com/news/us-dollar-marks-in-fifth-straight-gain-day-after-nfp-numbers-surge-202410042003 This is allround excellent news as the odds of the Baht going down are therefore higher than average.

There has always been strong intermingling between UK comedic talent and US showbusiness, one need only look at Stan Laurel, Charlie Chaplin or the early comedic films of Cary Grant, who started in UK vaudeville and then moved to the US. Worked the other way too, Bill Hicks, one of my favourite comedians, couldn't make it in the US but killed it in Scotland and England, A number of late night comedy show hosts in the US are from the UK. The US has a lot more black comedians who focus on black issues, while there are also some in the UK, Lenny Henry springs to mind, they're not as abundant. Jewish comedians seem to play a bigger role in the US, though the UK had a number too, Ben Elton was a fantastic comedic writer, but poor performer. Generally it would appear that US comedy has to be a bit nicer than UK comedy which thrives on offensiveness. But I think UK comedy has gone badly downhill with people in charge of television in the UK now who are infected with the woke virus. John Cleese has remarked on this. John Cleese was the apex of British comedy, with Monty Python, but even Fawlty Towers, anything he did was intelligent and hilarous, almost. But since the days of Russell Brand and Ricky Gervais you can see a clear decline in British comedy, Baddiel is terrible too. Gervais is just a slimy little offensive pug and Russell Brand has a messiah complex, both are unfunny completely to me, and their success signalled the downfall of British comedy. The Brits don't appear to have any real comedic talent at the moment, except for Ranganathan. Not sure why, but the PC brigade and woke tV prgorammers could be the cause.

Unfortunately WWIII used to be a nutjob scenario, but right now it is a realistic possibility. I am not thinking China. Israel has escalated the aggressive asset destruction competition with Iran. Israel is clearly trying to escalate things and get the US involved. If Israel hits the oilfields in Iran, which are Iran's livelihood, Iran has said that it will hit other oilfields in the middle east. That could be a catastrophic disaster for the world economies, and will almost certainly bring the US into the conflict. Russia has announced it will sign an alliance with Iran shortly and has explicitly warned Israel not to attack Iran. Whilst the chances of Russia attacking Israel or the US are zero, since they do not want to be involved in a hot war, this further complicates things as Russia will provide Iran with asssitance. If we look at WWI AND WWII both world wars were famously "sleep-walked" into, they did not happen by design, but by accident. Incompetent, foolish leaders were reckless and made mistakes. I have never seen more reckless leaders in charge than now than in my lifetime. These are the worst political leaders I have ever seen. The US, Biden and Harris want to send more weapons and pour gasoline on the fire in Ukraine. Germany and Britain want to send more weapons to Israel. The people who are in charge are reckless, inexperienced and dangerous.

If you look back on the history of German industry, it started out copying British products. That's why "Made in Germany" was introduced by the British. It was meant as a warning. Don't buy this, it's a shoddy German product. The British could not fathom that German products would eventually become better than British ones. Eventually Made in Germany became a mark of quality. Just like the British then you think the Chinese are just copyists. But in time they will be the innovators. They already file more patents than the US. The Japanese showed the same development. And the same will happen with Thailand, eventually. Given time. History does not support this notion that only Europeans have a Monopoly on innovation and invention. It shows the opposite. And this notion that a harsh environment created an extra special white race more ingenious than others, again is the climate in Siberia not harsher by far? Why did Siberians not develop this technology gap? Or the Eskimos, by all accounts a harsher life, no technology gap there. The technology gap has other reasons. I'm not hating on whites. I'm just being realistic. I thought like you. Harsh climate. Greater IQ. Then I read the bell curve. The best book on IQ I ever read. Turns out Asians are ahead of us. Of course the IQ measurement went through a development stage. However, IQ is a fantastic predictor. It has correlations that are astounding. It is still the best predictor of scholastic and indeed professional success. There is a reason the US army routinely tests IQs of new recruits.

Well, given that the ICI is based in part on the quality of universities, and the elite universities in the US and UK depend on the contributions of non American and non UK people we must be agreeing that the ICI does not support the notion that Europeans are more ingenous. Otherwise you would be talking nonsense.

Well, I was replying to someone who claimed that the adverse and harsh conditions in Europe created a people with higher ingenuity. I then replied that a problem with that claim is that Taiwanese, Japanese, Hong Kong Chinese, Chinese, Singaporeans, and South Koreans have a higher IQ than Europeans. And also that in Siberia the even harsher conditions would then have had to create an even more ingeneous people, but photography, x rays, or the telephone did not come out of Siberia. So you then texted the ICI, because there the US and UK have a high ranking. However, as we have established, that index takes into consideration the work of non American and non British, indeed non Europe people, the finest lecturers in the elite universities. So we agree basically that the ICI is not useful in supporting the claim that Europeans are more ingenous because of harsh conditions. Okay. I don't have a "need" to "speculate" about whether or not the ranking of elite US and UK univerisities is due to non-American and non-British lecturers, that's an obvious fact. I've been in in Oxford and I can tell you it's the most international place you can imagine. If you take non-European people out of the UK or US universities, their rankings will drop. Considerably. I'm not speculating. That's a fact.

The ICI takes into consideration the quality of universities. So as a matter of course US and UK universities are given very high ratings due to their elite universities. However, those elite universities have lecturers from China, Japan, South Korea, from all over the world really. So it's important to understand that the ICI is not a suitable marker for the intelligence of European White nations, because it takes into account the contributions of many non-white, non European educators.

So why do Europeans not have a higher IQ than Taiwanese, Japanese, Singaporeans, Hong Kong Chinese, South Koreans, Chinese? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country Another problem with that argument is why are people in Siberia then not the most ingenous and intelligent? Why did photography, the telephone and x rays not come out of Siberia? Conditions are even harsher there, surely the people should be even more ingenous?

Ignore the Democrat spin doctors, very interesting article. Disgraceful Kamala Harris supported these criminals. Looters, Loozers and fraudsters.