Fun4Me

This Is a pretty good read on the subject, but there's a plethora of info out there. http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

I don't have all of the answers either, nor am I trying to sell anything. I'm just offering up what I'm trying and, how it's going. I would also agree that there are better ways to fuel one's body than others. I will admit that I do sometimes eat less healthy than I could, but there are some times that I eat healthier as well. The only reason I'm not trying anything different, other than the fasting, is because I want to see how well it works by itself. I imagine I will incorporate cleaner eating, and more exercise along the way. Nothing in life is easy. If it was, we'd all have it. I never meant to imply that losing weight was easy, only that the method i'm using now is the easiest I've tried so far. Calories in vs. calories out, while probably oversimplified, is crucial for weight loss/gain/maintenance. There are ways of breaking it down from there, whether it be nutrition, exercise, etc. but I don't know too many people who can eat 1500 calories a day and gain weight, nor do I know many people who can eat 7000 calories a day and lose weight. Anyhoo, I don't want to make this thread about me, just wanted to throw what i'm doing into the mix for anyone interested.

It's just maintaining whatever calorie intake one wishes to use for whatever result they desire, same as any other person who would diet or not diet. it's no different than someone that eats 6 meals a day, I'm just giving my digestive system longer rest periods. There's no rocket science in it. It's calories in vs. calories out in most cases, although the people who would want us to spend money on their way would have us think different. To each his own though.

The fasting part, while it helps with tricking your body to use up the glycogen storage so you can burn fat instead, isn't really part of the weight loss thing. Sure it works for losing weight, but it also works for gaining weight. If I ate 7000 calories in my 4 hour period I would gain. Body builders use fasting too. The fasting part is mostly used to expel toxins as well as other benefits.

Maybe I should have said least intrusive lifestyle change. I'm basically skipping breakfast, eating lunch, and sometimes an early dinner. Rest of the time I'm drinking water. It's been the easiest thing I've ever tried to lose weight with so far.

I've started a plan that seems to be producing results. I started 2 weeks ago and have lost 10 pounds so far. It consists of intermittent fasting, along with trying to control the amount of calories I take in. Right now, i'm trying to see how much I can lose without changing what I eat, compared to what I ate before the plan started. I fast for 20 hours a day and eat during a 4 hour window. During that 4 hour window, I enjoy the same foods I did before I started, I just don't eat more meals after that, if it's high in calories. EX. yesterday I had a pizza buffet. The day before, I had a 1 meat combo from the local BBQ joint, and topped it off with an ice cream cone. Some days I will eat other things that give me the ability to eat a few meals during the 4 hour period. I could eat cleaner, go more towards a ketogenic diet, exercise more, etc, and probably boost the amount I lose right now, and I may do that in the future, but I want to see if I can do it without any real lifestyle change first.

You have me thinking about the line snagging now LOL!! I guess the good thing is we have choices now, where we didn't not to long ago

LOL!! That wheel was squeaking. I only went into such detail because I often hear people say casting with your right hand on a RH reel is odd, because you have to move your hand and switch the rod. They claim that the LH reel solves this problem, and I would agree, If they don't palm the reel or any other way of holding it besides the casting grip. Other than that, it's just as many, if not more steps to accomplish the same thing. I have thought about a LH for Flipping/Pitching. I can definitely see the advantage there

To me, the only way a two hand cast works is if you have both hands on the rod throughout the entire cast, and maybe even past it. LH reel, casting with right hand or both: Right hand in casting position, thumb on the spool. Cast with right hand or both. Hold both hands on the rod until the bait hits the water or until thumb pressure is no longer needed. In two hand scenario, take right hand off first and place on the reel then take left hand off of rod and grab the handle In scenario other than that, one would have to either grab the handle with their left hand, and hold onto the handle only to get their right hand into the palming position, or grab some other way so that one could palm the reel with the right hand then go to the handle after that with their left ( an extra step, basically double grabbing it ) RH reel casting with right hand or both Right hand in casting position, thumb on the spool Cast with right hand or both. No need to hold both hands on the rod because I'm moving my left to the palming position at any point during the cast while the bait is in the air. All I have to do is transfer my right hand to the reel handle. Unless one is reeling with their hand in the casting position, having not moved from when the cast was made, I think a RH casting with the right and reeling with the right, or Lh casting with the left and reeling with the left seems more efficient. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not LOL!! It sounded good in my mind.

Putting the preference for what feels better aside, I've never found a way to palm a LH reel, casting with my right hand, without having to add in an extra movement, which makes it the same and I would say worse, than the RH model. Now, if ones hand never moves from the casting position between casts, I could see it as an advantage.

If you believe JJ, Weeden is the second coming of the good lord himself.

Up to $2.07 from 1.96.

*rimshot*

$1.96 today

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that I believe everything Mr. Bleckler said, in that video that A-Jay posted. If you listen to the last thing Bleckler said ( last minute of the interview ) and the interview lasted for one more question, in which he was asked " then what was the motivation for the league to even suggest it", what do you think his answer would have been?

And it's very possible you're correct. I just can't get my head around a fish that would require 100 LB test not being able to see the line, but a bass can, or any fish for that matter. I think this debate is analogous to how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. The world may never know.

It's also possible that by coloring your clear line black, you essentially made the line visible where you colored it, making the fish bite because he saw the line. Or, maybe he only bit it the third time because he got frustrated and just decided to hit it. The point is fish can't talk, and unless we can tap into their little brains, we'll never know the answers to any of our questions. If line visibility mattesr to you, and by you I mean anyone, go for it. it's just hard for me to think it really matters in the context of normal fishing. Sure, we could make the argument that a fish might see my line if I use a tow rope, but that's fairly unrealistic.

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Again, if line visibility is so critical, how do you explain fish being caught on spinnerbaits, A-rigs, and lures with treble hooks and regular hooks, made with large diameter shinny metal either on them or leading them?

That all depends on if the fish see exactly like we do. They'll hit an A-rig, spinnerbait, look past treble hook, regular hook, etc. I don't think line really matters all that much.

If there was one perfect round, we'd all be using it. Different scenarios call for different ammunition. gardnerjigman: I see you stagger your rounds in the 45, do you also do that in the shotty? I've been contemplating doing that and I can see the value in birdshot in that type of mag load.

Your theory is fine, and to a certain extent I agree with it, the problem seems to be that you can't take any criticism regarding differing opinions, that there may be more than one way to catch fish, or that some beginners don't really care how into it they are. The golf guy that takes a cooler full of beer, some beat up sticks, hacks around the course, looses 20 balls, and shoots a 125, might be just as happy as the guy who has the best clubs money can buy, has taken lesson after lesson, wouldn't think of drinking for fear it might hurt his game, and puts his head down to grind for a 91.

For me personally, the correct phrase is "shoot to stop the threat". Death may, or may not be a byproduct of that. My shotgun is currently loaded with 12 pellet 0BK

Any attorney worth his weight will advise against the phrase "shoot to kill" being used under any courtroom circumstance. .

A true steward of fishing, passing the fun down to the youngsters, well done!!

$2.14 today