showurcolours

I can't find TT forks on tarty, yeh the whole vee thing is the major issue really. I have heard that about Urbans though

All of the inspired range are silly expensive, heavy and are pretty much disk only. I'm not swopping my front vee for a disk just to use marginally lighter forks. Thanks anyway though, I'll end up getting Urbans most likely

To the guy who said he couldn't find the answer to the first question... You do realise that once you've completed the test you can get a walk through of which ones you got correct and which ones you failed. It also has a handy little fact guide to help. After reading the right answers, I've now managed to memorise the 24 correct answers... so surely based on this alone, any one with a half decent memory can cheat this test and get entry...

Haah, 1498g SAY WHAAAAAAAA

Yeah I'll jump on this for a sec, What forks would everyone recommend for a Zoot?

Looks like a good day out! Also, nice to see some YMAS making it's way into some trials vids

You have failed the practice citizenship test. Questions answered correctly: 8 out of 24 (33%) Time taken: 05 minutes 34 seconds

8 seasons according to Weeds

Buy a megaphone and walk around Russia quoting youtube links - instant publicity

Nice riding! Bike looks sweet as well. P.s has anyone ever said you look like Justin Vernon from Bon Iver?

Haha, they should force all Snooker pro's (I literally don't know any to name) to take amphetamines before the match/game/round (again, lack of knowledge here)

Have you tried the BBC? I guess some of the revision stuff may come in handy. If not, Mensa have practice IQ tests you can take which would most likely help get your brain in gear. I had to do something called a McQuaig test for this job and was 6 short which left me wishing I had done some sort of revision, so best of luck

People need to remember a couple of things here though Firstly, it's not just cycling - It's literally every competitive sport, predominately all those that are Olympic disciplines Secondly, Lance wasn't the only culprit here. He would have had such a large amount of people who knew that he doped and helped him but covered it up anyway most likely for the cash. I think when you get a large amount of athletes and officials at the top of the game who are willing to go to such extreme lengths to cover something up, then something is fundamentally wrong with the sport. (actually, them willing to do this might suggest that they care for the sports image in a f**ked up way, if you imagine they did it to popularise the sport then I wonder how many people would actually blame them? after all, cycling is really bloody boring) On a more personal note though, I think performance enhancing drugs and doping methods should be legal in all sports. It would definitely make them ten times more entertaining - especially the really dull ones like golf, darts, snooker and cycling.

Ebony

This is simply amazing.

Smash the shit outta it broo!

Now, not to too sound harsh but I'm guessing that most of the 'muscle' you believed you have gained is actually excess water retention from the creatine, a lovely side effect which tricks people into thinking they are gaining muscle but they aren't. Even for a joke, this is awful

Yes brad, yes it is. I trained for them when I was 16/17 and it was grueling, I trained with my mate though and after like 4 months he applied and got in. I decided I wanted to go to university and get a degree first. He said it was amazing but he dropped out after a year because he thought he went in too young. Plus, green berets look siiiickk!

Join the marines and have some self respect lad!

Haha sounds decent, PhD, Degree or Masters? My dissertation was entitled, "Investigating the use of colour as a psychological tool to try enhance the existing benefits of Green Exercise" My tutor said that if we use "the effect of blahh blah blah" we will most likely fail as it's not specific enough. Different tutors want different things I guess Good luck with it anyway man, I'd like to read it one day!

Haha sorry dude, we pretty much highjacked this thread. I f**king love science - I'm a reet geek

But I disagree again, there's no evidence for protein increasing thermogenesis/TEF. Also, it could never be a negative energetic balance because the calorific intake of protein would never be less than the required amount to digest and absorb it. Examples of negative calorific intake would be celery. 'protein increases you energetic output(by increasing termogenesis)' - which is unproven because thermogenesis/TEF is regardless of energy output. However, energy output would be directly affected by a chronic change in BMR that may be induced by changes to homeostasis. What's your thesis on? I chose psychology for my disseration (I'm guessing it's the same thing as a thesis? Unless of course you're studying at a masters or PhD level?) But yeah good debate, this is exactly how pro scientists conduct their shit (note my informality now we have finished;))

Ok but 100kcal is given as an expended amount, not an ingested amount. That is to say that it will provide 100kcal no matter what is ingested because that is the expended figure - the very tiny minute amount it will take to break the food down to obtain that energy. Also, you energy intake can't be the same from 50/30/20 as 30/50/20 (P,C,F) because= 1g protein = ~4.5kcal 1g carb = ~4kcal 1g fat = ~9kcal. So by that simple knowledge, 50/30/20 would equate to 225kcal/120kcal/180kcal (total of 525kcal) (P,C,F) and 30/50/20 would equate to 135kcal/ 200kcal/ 180kcal (total of 515kcal) So actually the second ratio would provide 10kcal less than the first. as for BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) - yes eating more meals of the same calorific density as the previous will increase BMR, resulting in the ability to either gain weight or increase weight Edit, Yes that journal does refer to TEF but it doesn't support your 'thesis' - especially when it's done in twenty rats haha It's mainly about the breakdown of protein and calling for more specific test conditions as opposed to the energy it will output - "more significant measurements of specific dynamic effects of food nutrients could be made if the heat production of an animal maintained in energy and nitrogen equilibrium, instead of the fasting metabolism"

You're now talking about TEF (thermogenic effect of food), which I am very familiar with. Still though, 100kcal from protein and 100kcal from fat is still providing the same energy - which is what you didn't agree with in the first place - Disregarding the breaking it down and absorbing it, which is nearly impossible to workout on an individual basis. I do agree though that fat will cause a more rich environment and a greater TEF because of it's chemical structure and overall density. I think we are most likely agreeing with each other but the language barrier is prooving it to be difficult. Still though, good to see some guys with some sport specific knowledge