Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > General Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-27-2007, 01:20 PM   #21
Alan Aragon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Default Can't speak for Stewart, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart Mather View Post
I'm curious why you think that. Reading and rereading AA's IF review, I couldn't help getting the impression that here was a guy who hasn't extended his own normal overnight fast to something greater than 15 hrs for at least a couple of months, but has carefully cherrypicked the available IF studies to give the impression that the research into IF as a pro health/bodycomp dietary approach was solid and inconclusive, rather than it being sparse, short term and not very well designed.
No cherrypicking on my part. If you find data challenging what I discussed please post it up. Also, no rat studies, please.
Quote:
Seems like he has some kind of personal doubts about IF and set about reinforcing his own preconceptions in a fairly 'scholarly' way.
No disagreement at all that I had doubts about this before I investigated the research behind it. However, skepticism (not to be mistaken for cynicism) mixed with genuine curiosity & interest = great motivation for investigation. I think that "reinforcing" current beliefs for the sake of winning an argument is a good way to NEVER increase your knowledge & wisdom. Now, let's imagine that I indeed just wanted to win a debate. It would be pretty dumb for me to not exhaust my due diligence and get rightfully tagged by my opponents for data omission. Why leave undiscussed ammo for the other guy if you just want to win?
Quote:
Maybe he should actually do it for a couple of months himself. It just sounds so like the anti low carb 'literature' from a few years ago.
I did try it for a short stint, but the hunger stayed, and strength dropped. True, I could have tried to hang in there for a longer duration, but it just didn't feel right. Also, I have certain scheduling/family factors that make IF unrealistic for me personally. Bottom line is that you can argue in favor for IF on the basis of convenience & the joy of binging, but nothing else. Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.


PS - Here's one of my favorite quotes, words to live by in this industry:

"My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations." -Thomas Huxley, 1860
Alan Aragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 01:37 PM   #22
Alan Aragon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb Wolf View Post
Uhhh...Alan is the one reaching here. I was tempted to go through and check the references against what he wrote but, like Herring said, that is a long painful process.

AA starts using the same tone and pacing the vegetarian docs use when they debate Eades and Cordain: The Emotional Looser.

This is nice:
"Last time I checked, Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't giving hard copies of his book away for free."

No...They are not but the Doc IS giving the whole shooting match away:

http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

I hope AA keeps it up...he will look even more the ass.
Thanks for the welcome, I hope asses like myself can fart around here on occasion.

Let me ask you this -- Because he's giving away an e-book version, do you think that hardcopies aren't being sold as a result of this publicity? Obviously, hard copies are still being sold by major book retailers for those who aren't inclined to read books via their computer screens. Given this, my position still stands, he has (as he put it), 'something to sell'. And to top it off, you can make donations to him via his website just in case being an NIH researcher/MD ain't gonna carry the Herrings through the lean times. Like I said, he's out to make a buck from his book like anyone else, and it was amusing to see him imply differently.
Alan Aragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 06:47 PM   #23
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
I did try it for a short stint, but the hunger stayed, and strength dropped. True, I could have tried to hang in there for a longer duration, but it just didn't feel right. Also, I have certain scheduling/family factors that make IF unrealistic for me personally.
Alan, now we're getting somewhere. It might help if you actually described how you approached extending your normal overnight IF'ing. There are indeed pitfalls. Maybe we can help. And on the feelgood factor, I'm pretty sure Dean Ornish 'feels' an ultra low fat high ('healthy') carb diet feels right too. Feeling right, particularly in the short term, is a pretty poor reason to adversly judge a dietary approach. Making a transition to a diet that more closely suits the way we are designed after a lifetime of contrary habits is often going to take some doing.

Quote:
Bottom line is that you can argue in favor for IF on the basis of convenience & the joy of binging, but nothing else. Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.
Millions of years of the entire evolution of life on this planet may well not be 'scientific data' or 'relevant subjects & protocols' but it is considerably more convincing to this little black duck than the research community's meagre attempts to investigate the physiology of longer than post neolithic human overnight fasting thus far. All life IF's Alan, even you, right now. It has to, unless the particular organism gets up to eat while it is asleep. And for those organisms (and I mean herbivores too) that don't have access to shops fridges and cars, or many of the other so called 'fruits' of the agricultural revolution, getting food takes a lot more effort than it does modern humans. Not to mention that getting it at all at 'customary' meal intervals is just not on. So the duration of overnight (notwithstanding that some organisms naturally fast during the day, of course) daily fasting duration is naturally highly variable. In other words, all life naturally intermittently fasts. It has to. The first meal of the day is not called 'break.. fast' for nothing. The mistake modern humans seem to have made is that that meal should always (or ever) happen in the morning to maximize health/body comp (all other things being equal)

So on the contrary, the only reason to eat regular meals would be if humans are somehow 'physiologically special'. Alan, I think you and I agee at least on this - we're not . And I'm really curious about the 'convenience and joy of binging (sp)' line. It's certainly convenient. But why do you think it has anything to do with bingeing? I really think you didn't do it (or probably more likely, tried to ramp up the fasting time too fast) for long enough to have a clue.

But in any case, my 'cherry picking' suggestion stands. As Bert Herring points out, you could use the references you have quoted to come to a completely contrary view on IF to the one you have reached. 'Studies' are a bit like that Alan. You can pretty well use them to shore up just about any preconception you choose. The fields of scientific inquiry where the research is in its infancy, like IF, most of all.

Quote:
PS - Here's one of my favorite quotes, words to live by in this industry:

"My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations." -Thomas Huxley, 1860
Ah, Thomas Huxley is indeed one of the more innappropriately quoted philosophers isn't he ? Alan, I'd urge you to reconsider your current understanding of the word 'facts'. Besides, I would have thought that it was patently obvious that the 'aspirations' in the quote could well be taken in your case to mean the either the 'scheduling/family factors' you referred to, or the short term hunger/strength loss you experienced,... or both. Quotes are dangerous things Alan. Just make sure the ones you choose aren't staring you in the face.

And just on your attempt to besmirch Bert Herring's credibility from the 'something to sell' perspective, I would point out that all research scientists have 'something' to sell. Reputation for one, which more often than not translates, in the form of funding and jobs, directly into monetary reward. Is it any wonder the aforementioned Dean Ornish is so determined to resist the general acceptance that 'low fat' is a big mistake, when he has so much to lose. You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer.

For those of us who have ramped up overnight fasting gently enough and long term enough (for me personally, nine months next week on a 17- 24 hr randomly varying low carb IF'ing approach, after five years just low carb), it matters little if that scientific endorsement of an evolutionary constant from the very dawn of life takes a very long time indeed. I and anyone who meets me can see the body comp/ health benefits first hand - with far, far less food, just as much if not more actual enjoyment of food, and considerably less time pushing heavy objects around. Alan, 'blackboxing' is infallible, if the only person you are trying to convince can't avoid the bottom line.

But you aren't trying to sensibly convince yourself of anything. By your own admission, you didn't do it for very long for a start. And not doing it for very long inevitably means that you couldn't have done it (ramped up the overnight fasting time) very gradually either. No wonder you personally crashed and burnt with it (hunger and strength loss ?). With all due respect (full marks for 'cherrypicking' your 'facts' at the very least) if your personal half cocked attempt at IF is anything like your ability to review the available scientific literature objectively, I'm afraid it doesn't count for much.

Alan, the 'scheduling and family factors' argument for you personally is persuasive. Everything else you've said about IF (IMHO)....isn't.

Stuart.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2007, 07:38 PM
Stuart Mather
This message has been deleted by Stuart Mather.
Old 08-28-2007, 12:08 PM   #24
Alan Aragon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart Mather View Post
Alan, now we're getting somewhere. It might help if you actually described how you approached extending your normal overnight IF'ing. There are indeed pitfalls. Maybe we can help. And on the feelgood factor, I'm pretty sure Dean Ornish 'feels' an ultra low fat high ('healthy') carb diet feels right too. Feeling right, particularly in the short term, is a pretty poor reason to adversly judge a dietary approach. Making a transition to a diet that more closely suits the way we are designed after a lifetime of contrary habits is often going to take some doing.



Millions of years of the entire evolution of life on this planet may well not be 'scientific data' or 'relevant subjects & protocols' but it is considerably more convincing to this little black duck than the research community's meagre attempts to investigate the physiology of longer than post neolithic human overnight fasting thus far. All life IF's Alan, even you, right now. It has to, unless the particular organism gets up to eat while it is asleep. And for those organisms (and I mean herbivores too) that don't have access to shops fridges and cars, or many of the other so called 'fruits' of the agricultural revolution, getting food takes a lot more effort than it does modern humans. Not to mention that getting it at all at 'customary' meal intervals is just not on. So the duration of overnight (notwithstanding that some organisms naturally fast during the day, of course) daily fasting duration is naturally highly variable. In other words, all life naturally intermittently fasts. It has to. The first meal of the day is not called 'break.. fast' for nothing. The mistake modern humans seem to have made is that that meal should always (or ever) happen in the morning to maximize health/body comp (all other things being equal)

So on the contrary, the only reason to eat regular meals would be if humans are somehow 'physiologically special'. Alan, I think you and I agee at least on this - we're not . And I'm really curious about the 'convenience and joy of binging (sp)' line. It's certainly convenient. But why do you think it has anything to do with bingeing? I really think you didn't do it (or probably more likely, tried to ramp up the fasting time too fast) for long enough to have a clue.

But in any case, my 'cherry picking' suggestion stands. As Bert Herring points out, you could use the references you have quoted to come to a completely contrary view on IF to the one you have reached. 'Studies' are a bit like that Alan. You can pretty well use them to shore up just about any preconception you choose. The fields of scientific inquiry where the research is in its infancy, like IF, most of all.



Ah, Thomas Huxley is indeed one of the more innappropriately quoted philosophers isn't he ? Alan, I'd urge you to reconsider your current understanding of the word 'facts'. Besides, I would have thought that it was patently obvious that the 'aspirations' in the quote could well be taken in your case to mean the either the 'scheduling/family factors' you referred to, or the short term hunger/strength loss you experienced,... or both. Quotes are dangerous things Alan. Just make sure the ones you choose aren't staring you in the face.

And just on your attempt to besmirch Bert Herring's credibility from the 'something to sell' perspective, I would point out that all research scientists have 'something' to sell. Reputation for one, which more often than not translates, in the form of funding and jobs, directly into monetary reward. Is it any wonder the aforementioned Dean Ornish is so determined to resist the general acceptance that 'low fat' is a big mistake, when he has so much to lose. You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer.

For those of us who have ramped up overnight fasting gently enough and long term enough (for me personally, nine months next week on a 17- 24 hr randomly varying low carb IF'ing approach, after five years just low carb), it matters little if that scientific endorsement of an evolutionary constant from the very dawn of life takes a very long time indeed. I and anyone who meets me can see the body comp/ health benefits first hand - with far, far less food, just as much if not more actual enjoyment of food, and considerably less time pushing heavy objects around. Alan, 'blackboxing' is infallible, if the only person you are trying to convince can't avoid the bottom line.

But you aren't trying to sensibly convince yourself of anything. By your own admission, you didn't do it for very long for a start. And not doing it for very long inevitably means that you couldn't have done it (ramped up the overnight fasting time) very gradually either. No wonder you personally crashed and burnt with it (hunger and strength loss ?). With all due respect (full marks for 'cherrypicking' your 'facts' at the very least) if your personal half cocked attempt at IF is anything like your ability to review the available scientific literature objectively, I'm afraid it doesn't count for much.

Alan, the 'scheduling and family factors' argument for you personally is persuasive. Everything else you've said about IF (IMHO)....isn't.

Stuart.
First off, speculating over prehistoric eating habits is irrelevant to this discussion, where you essentially are taking issue with my review of scientific research. And it's very ironic how you point to the superiority of evolutionary speculation over scientific research. Why is this ironic? Because before the end of your speech, you attempt to relinquish the science card by saying, "You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer". If you can't keep a consistent position within a single post, how am I supposed to take your sage advice on how to convert my evil ways to the IF lifestyle?

Aside from laboring on about personal experiences, All you did here was avoid giving specific examples of how I "cherrypicked". If I indeed did so, you still haven't cited literature I allegedly omitted on purpose to support my case. Post it up & let's discuss it - otherwise your accusation is baseless. Then, you segue into an irrelevant issue with the person I quoted, while ignoring the content of the quote. From there, you wander out on more irrelevant tangents involving Ornish and Herring. If you're comprehending any sort of theme here, it's that our debate is over the research in my article, and the interpretation of that research. So far you've verbosely danced around it.
Alan Aragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 05:14 PM   #25
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
First off, speculating over prehistoric eating habits is irrelevant to this discussion, where you essentially are taking issue with my review of scientific research. And it's very ironic how you point to the superiority of evolutionary speculation over scientific research. Why is this ironic? Because before the end of your speech, you attempt to relinquish the science card by saying, "You yourself will look a tad ridiculous when and if the scientific community directs enough money at long term longer overnight human fasting and that research shows it to be a body comp and health no brainer". If you can't keep a consistent position within a single post, how am I supposed to take your sage advice on how to convert my evil ways to the IF lifestyle?
Alan, ironic you think? You'll notice I said 'when and if'. I'm not relinquishing any 'card', science or otherwise. I'm not sure I even adopted any . Besides, I wasn't just talking about 'speculation over prehistoric' eating habits. The variability of daily fasts for any contemporary hunter gatherer humans, or indeed any carbon based life form on this planet whatsoever, (even bacteria) is easily observable.

Look Alan please grow up. Nobody's trying to 'convert your evil ways to the IF lifestyle'. As I pointed out, you IF now. Every living thing does, and always has. Modern (actually post neolithic if you want to get pedantic, which I certainly don't) humans have just got very skilful at indulging the undoubted pleasure of eating into an eating frequency which we were not really designed for. You and anyone else who eats as frequently as modern convenience allows is hardly going to drop dead. In fact by making wise food choices, you can even thrive. But the people on this forum (for one) who have made the transition to longer overnight fasts gradually enough and long term enough - at least a few months, remember you've been eating 'regular' meals for your whole life. It's not a change you can hope to realize the remarkable health and body comp benefits from by making it precipitous.



Quote:
Aside from laboring on about personal experiences, All you did here was avoid giving specific examples of how I "cherrypicked". If I indeed did so, you still haven't cited literature I allegedly omitted on purpose to support my case. Post it up & let's discuss it - otherwise your accusation is baseless. Then, you segue into an irrelevant issue with the person I quoted, while ignoring the content of the quote. From there, you wander out on more irrelevant tangents involving Ornish and Herring. If you're comprehending any sort of theme here, it's that our debate is over the research in my article, and the interpretation of that research. So far you've verbosely danced around it.
No Alan, I think that's what you do want our debate to be over. I think I mentioned in my previous post that 'studies' ( particularly given the almost non existence of long term data on the physiological effects of extending the 'normal' [read 'contemporary'] overnight fast to at least 15 hrs) can be used by anyone with half a brain to support whatever position they choose. The human mind is a very clever tool for muddying the waters.

I simply don't need to try to support the idea of a regularly (and in my experience randomly longer) longer overnight fast by dredging through the current paucity of available research. If I had waited for the scientific community to dispel the backlog of hubris attached to the sorry low fat/ anti low carb dietary experiment of the last fifty years to adopt a low carb dietary approach, as you seem to be doing about IF, I'd only just be accepting the inevitable and realizing that human health/body comp is far better suited to low carb. I've been doing IF for long enough now to simply be living proof that extending the length of the overnight fast is a no brainer for human health/ body comp with the minimum amount of food. You do accept that eating food and the digestion of it is physiologically stressful in and of itself, and the less you need to achieve your bodycomp goals the better, don't you Alan? Sigh! perhaps you don't.

On this forum alone, there are far better read people on the details of the currently available research into why IF is such a good idea for human health/body comp than I. That's one of the reasons I like this forum.
But more importantly Alan, the people who frequent the IF section here are actually doing it sensibly themselves, and get to reap the benefits. You haven't and while you don't, you won't . Instead you've wasted an incredible amount of mental energy dredging through the available scientific research (lets avoid the word 'cherrypicking' shall we? You obviously have a problem with it - remember I never said it wasn't possible to find negatives about IF in the available research if you tried hard enough ) to find and dwell on the negatives.

What is most disturbing however, s that you claim your review of even the available research can only sensibly lead to one conclusion, that it is definitely not the most suitable dietary approach for human beings, and that it definitely doesn't offer extraordinary health/ body comp benefits over eating 'regular meals'. Yet people like Bert Herring, who has read exactly the same research, came to a completely different conclusion. Robb Wolf would certainly be similarly well read in the scientific IF literature. There are many others.

Alan, hat off to you for putting so much work into your review. But it is just blindingly obvious that you went into the exercise with crippling preconceptions. Now if you really do want to find if you are seriously mistaken, do it properly - ie. ramp up your own personal normal overnight fast gradually (no more than half an hour a week), and don't stop till you've been fasting at least sixteen hrs (the 'Lean Gains' guy's magic number) for at least three months.

Otherwise, please stop wasting our time. And if you decide to go on succumbing to the 'scheduling/ family factors' that seem to be a compelling factor in why don't choose to do it properly, all the best to you .

Stuart.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 06:21 PM   #26
Alan Aragon
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart Mather View Post
And if you decide to go on succumbing to the 'scheduling/ family factors that seem to be a compelling factor in why don't choose to do it properly, all the best to you .

Stuart.
This right here was the clincher. You crossed over into evangelism, now it's seriously tough to take you seriously. By the way, no one held a gun to your head to have a discussion with me that got you all fired up. I have no malice on my end, do what you do Stuart, all the best.
Alan Aragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2007, 07:26 PM   #27
Stuart Mather
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
This right here was the clincher. You crossed over into evangelism, now it's seriously tough to take you seriously. By the way, no one held a gun to your head to have a discussion with me that got you all fired up. I have no malice on my end, do what you do Stuart, all the best.
Evangelism? Alan, you can't be serious. This is an IF forum for heaven's sake .

Look, this discussion basically boils down to this: There is no research on the long term ( ie. longer than 12 months) physiological effects of regular overnight fasts of at least 15 hrs on humans. There is a very simple reason for that. Since the neolithic agricultural revolution, most humans can and do take advantage of being able to eat by the clock. Food is fun, after all. Basically we eat regularly...because we can.

There is some animal data from short time frame studies, and 'Ramadan' type human studies of really short fast duration. All the currently available research can be construed to have both pros and cons about those physiological effects.

There is also the easily observable natural variability of food availability to any species alive today which doesn't need any scientific expertise to be aware of. But as I said in my first post in this thread, the only really effective way to discover for yourself how much IF offers for both health and body comp is to make the transition to longer overnight fasting properly(ie. gradually enough for you personally), and for long enough.

Alan, I'm afraid you didn't do either.

As to wether you do decide in the future to reap those benefits, it's entirely up to you. Is that evangelism, or did I miss something?

Stuart.
Stuart Mather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 03:03 AM   #28
Martin Berkhan
New Member
 
Martin Berkhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6
Default

Alan, what did Ryan contribute with?
__________________
Intermittent fasting for fat loss and strength

Personal consultations, diet and training

Leangains.com (27th june update)
Martin Berkhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 04:52 AM   #29
Allen Yeh
Senior Member
 
Allen Yeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
Until more scientific data crops up using relevant subjects & protocols, IF will remain a testimony-based support diet, like anything else without sci lit behind its superiority over other regimes. If you like it, hey, go ahead & do it. Just don't kid youself into thinking it's physiologically special.
I guess the problem I have with a statement like this is that you are relying on studies that are typically 10-40 years behind what has already come and maybe gone in the "fitness industry." Like Stuart said, it's taken this long for current literature to say "Hm...maybe super high carbohydrate diets might not be the best thing for long term health."

It's not just the nutrition angle but training also, how many times have you heard "My doctor says squats are bad for your knees?" Then you go out and look for literature to say "squats aren't bad for your knees because of..XYZ." Then you have people come back and say "Well ABC says this so squats must be bad."

It's nice to have science back you up but it doesn't seem to me that guys like Charles Poliquin, Mike Boyle, Alwyn Cosgrove, Dan John, Dave Tate, Mark Vestergen, Pavel T., bodybuilders (natural or not)...etc wait for the newest studies in order to do what they think is best for their athletes/clients or themselves.
__________________
"And for crying out loud. Don't go into the pain cave. I can't stress this enough. Your Totem Animal won't be in there to help you. You'll be on your own. The Pain Cave is for cowards.
Pain is your companion, don't go hide from it."
-Kelly Starrett
Allen Yeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2007, 12:21 PM   #30
Eric Jones
Member
 
Eric Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 63
Default

Black Box, for the win!

Just like a computer though; if you put crap in, you get crap out
Eric Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Subscribe to our Newsletter


Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.
ASK GREG

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question
WEIGHTLIFTING TEAM

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
About
Help
Newsletter
Products & Services
Gym
Store
Seminars
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
Issues
Articles
Workouts
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Resources
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator