Question about Lefty?

Does he actually look fitter these days? I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'

On Apr 30, 8:54*pm, "Stromata" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> Does he actually look fitter these days? I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'

You sound queer. Not that there's any thing wrong with that.

On Thu, 01 May 2008 02:54:09 GMT, "Stromata" <d@d.com> wrote:

>Does he actually look fitter these days?

He does (but never really looked unfit - not when I saw him walking
with energy). Things about how one's genes has someone carry one's
weight matter if they matter. That means - on the golf course.

> I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'

Maybe my interests are different from yours here.

On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, "Stromata" <d...@d.com> wrote:
> Does he actually look fitter these days? I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'

nothing wrong with man breast..... I think it's hereditary. I blame
dad for mine, that & smokin a ton of dope as a youth. I think they say
that is a side effect of being a stoner.

On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT), crapyking
<crapyking1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, "Stromata" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>> Does he actually look fitter these days? I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'
>
>nothing wrong with man breast..... I think it's hereditary. I blame
>dad for mine, that & smokin a ton of dope as a youth. I think they say
>that is a side effect of being a stoner.

I don't believe that is true because I.....I.....oh, shit...I forgot
what I was going to say.

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
[url]http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com[/url]
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

On May 1, 4:02*pm, crapyking <crapyki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, "Stromata" <d...@d.com> wrote:
>
> > Does he actually look fitter these days? I still see man-boobs a jiggilin'
>
> nothing wrong with man breast..... I think it's hereditary. I blame
> dad for mine, that & smokin a ton of dope as a youth. I think they say
> that is a side effect of being a stoner.




If bodyfat is in the 10% range, there would be no bitch tits.

If you're 20% or higher, ya, it's genetic, but truly fit people don't
get them. For instance in the running events in track and field there
will not be a single pair to be found.

On May 1, 5:03*pm, "K. Gringioni." <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If bodyfat is in the 10% range, there would be no bitch tits.

That's a pretty low number for someone who is not a highly-trained
athlete. Definitely on the lean side.

Based upon the footage I've seen of Phil lately, it appears he has
lost some weight and put on a bit of muscle. No longer doughy, but,
he still has a ways to go before acheiving chisled/buff status.

On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "K. Gringioni."
<kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If you're 20% or higher, ya, it's genetic, but truly fit people don't
>get them. For instance in the running events in track and field there
>will not be a single pair to be found.

For various values of "totaly fit".

If you measure it by the ability to run track events, you're right.
Some of the field events have very big bodies though.

But if you measure it by ability to play golf, I'm not sure track
skinny is best.

And if you measure it by the odds to live to be 100, I'm pretty sure
that the optimal is not as skinny as these track stars.

On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:26:44 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 1 May 2008 17:03:08 -0700 (PDT), "K. Gringioni."
><kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If you're 20% or higher, ya, it's genetic, but truly fit people don't
>>get them. For instance in the running events in track and field there
>>will not be a single pair to be found.
>
>For various values of "totaly fit".
>
>If you measure it by the ability to run track events, you're right.
>Some of the field events have very big bodies though.
>
>But if you measure it by ability to play golf, I'm not sure track
>skinny is best.
>
>And if you measure it by the odds to live to be 100, I'm pretty sure
>that the optimal is not as skinny as these track stars.

You're casting a wide net with that one. You typically don't see
"skinny" people running 400 meter or less events. Check out the field
for a 100 meter race and typically you will see some very fit looking
athletes. Marathoners and 10K types are a different story. Read this
(written by someone who once finished 4th in the Ironman), and you'll
find some support for your "odds to live to be 100" comment"

[url]http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/[/url]

Dave Clary
Corpus Christi, TX
[url]http://davegetsfit.blogspot.com[/url]
Diet, Exercise, and Golf!

On Fri, 02 May 2008 05:40:40 -0500, [email]dave@geewhiz.com[/email] wrote:

>You're casting a wide net with that one. You typically don't see
>"skinny" people running 400 meter or less events. Check out the field
>for a 100 meter race and typically you will see some very fit looking
>athletes. Marathoners and 10K types are a different story. Read this
>(written by someone who once finished 4th in the Ironman), and you'll
>find some support for your "odds to live to be 100" comment"

But usually we see fitness related to long distance runners rather
than to sprinters. My cardiologist doesn't want me to sprint, he
wants me to exercize for an hour at a time.


>[url]http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/[/url]

Nice article - written by a trainer though. Scientific medical
studies might be better though.