Well i backed out of the discussions, but you kept bringing me up. Figured i'd be polite and answer you.
I've been on a Bone Broth based diet. Takes a little to get used too. Generally just sip on bone broth through out the day.
A real CTE shot for you to try.
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
I've been on a Bone Broth based diet. Takes a little to get used too. Generally just sip on bone broth through out the day.
Dan, seriously. Why not just concentrate on making balls with CTE as Mohrt has been teaching you? Give up the need to dig deeper. Give up these little petty back and forths that for right now mean absolutely nothing. Just work with Mohrt, if he is still wanting to, and don't discuss anything else CTE related. Just try to get to the point that you get it and can make balls, or give up and never make a ball with CTE.
I am intermittent fasting. Trying to get back to college weight. Down 15 after one month.
Nah I am good. I don't need to act like your secretary.
If you act innocent but have an agenda then you're not being genuine.
My opinion is that you have an agenda based upon your words and actions.
Works fantasic, and has the added benefit of not being an actual diet. Well..., it doesn't necessarily need to have one accompanied with it. Although I hear the combined results are amazing.
When I became a desk jockey for work, I started packing it on. Intermittent fasting brought me down from 220 to <200 with ease. I'm sure if I adopted a decent diet and moderate excercise I could be <190 and in the best shape of my life since my 20's.
If you intermittently fast it has a built in diet, as you naturally eat less calories and cravings dissipate. It also gives your body a chance to go into ketosis to burn fat and rid toxins.
Not necessarily... When I first used intermittent fasting I actually ate horribly, and I doubt a calorie less...lol. Still lost weight at a noticable rate without the aid of excercise. A "diet" is something that either contains specific food and/or portion sizing. Generally in an effort to limit calories or what is considered to have poor nutritional value.
Based on what typically happens in this section of the forum, I have zero doubt we could end up having a debate on the definition of the word "diet"...lol
Shifting your eating habits merely to a different time of day, isn't a diet. I went from an eating window being the hours of 9am to 6pm, to 3pm to <12pm.
Overcoming the morning/afternoon cravings is only tough for the first couple of days imo.
A diet is simply a way of eating. When you intermittently fast, the idea is behind a longer period of zero calorie intake. This makes calorie reduction much easier than some crash diet. Sure you can still eat terribly while fasting and not lose weight. But it gives you a much better chance of getting your eating habits under control. So something like:
For the first two weeks try to get a 16:8 fast so your eating window is 8 hours. Don’t concern yourself with what you eat just yet. If you can accomplish this, you’ve already set yourself up for success on the next step, which could be eating better, and less calories. Something that works for you and your goals. Also working in some exercise is icing on the cake. Even just walking is very good. IM let’s me focus on the fast and not the food. Working great and something sustainable, not to mention very healthy. I digress we’ve gone off topic lol. I’ll say one thing, health is far more important than arguing over how to put balls in holes.
Check the definition.... Google is a powerful thing.
It's actually to force your body to burn fat stores by not providing fuel via a 'not' empty stomach. Kinda the same thing, but mine isn't scripted to support my inaccurate narrative, and I apologies for the double negative.
Look you follow the practice of intermittent fasting. Good for you. I also follow the premise but don't bother adhering to a diet (again check the definition). I'm not interested in the debate. Just wanted to let you know that others on the forum follow the practice as well.
I wish you continued success
Agreed... If you go beyond what just pops up with the initial google search you can find a definition vague enough to encompass what you have said. I'll stand corrected.I checked the definition. I was right
So let me word it this way... You can utilize intermittent fasting and comsume the same amount/type of calorie intake you had prior and still benefit from significant results. You can increase your results by altering your diet (def: way of eating) to lower calorie intake and increase nutritional value.
I happen to really like pizza and cookies, but hate spinach and kale. So just shifting my eating window was enough for me drop decent weight and still enjoy what I eat. That said, I'll never claim to have a healthy 'way of eating', (aka: diet).
Agreed... If you go beyond what just pops up with the initial google search you can find a definition vague enough to encompass what you have said. I'll stand corrected.
So let me word it this way... You can utilize intermittent fasting and comsume the same amount/type of calorie intake you had prior and still benefit from significant results. You can increase your results by altering your diet (def: way of eating) to lower calorie intake and increase nutritional value.
I happen to really like pizza and cookies, but hate spinach and kale. So just shifting my eating window was enough for me drop decent weight and still enjoy what I eat. That said, I'll never claim to have a healthy 'way of eating', (aka: diet).
Yes exactly!! I focus on the fast. Eating healthier and exercise is bonus!
I forgot about this video and just now watched it. I am very glad to know you were a math major because that means you understand logic. On the other hand, neither of us, nor probably anybody else in this forum, is an expert on perception. I really liked this video because it laid things out clearly and with greater detail when it comes to the "mystery" part. Some reactions:Sounds good. I just want to mention, I have no dog in this fight. I don't make a dime. I'm not coming here to argue or make people mad. I'm genuinely interested in finding out if common ground can be made. I have no personal plight with anyone on this forum, and I try very hard not to make something into a personal issue. You guys make it so tempting sometimes
So with that, I made another video. This is not a shot demo, this is a concept clearing demo. All I do is talk. Don't bother comparing cue alignments frame by frame
The HD version is still processing at the moment, but you don't really need it to hear me talk.
- This was impromptu, I pause here and there a little but did get concepts across.
- I said "aim line and shot line" a few times when I mean "aim line and sight line".
- For Pro One I explain how to get on the CCB before we had stepping. But you can use stepping also with Pro One, which I do as well.
- I tend to mix "CCB" and "NISL" and "shot line" throughout the video. They are all conceptually the same thing.
1. In my video analysis of your first shooting video I was attempting to kind of document what it is you were doing. I was looking for clues as to what might be causing your shot success. Sometimes you think you know what you are doing but in reality you don't. We are all victim to that. I'm not saying that happened here, but the video did disclose a couple of things which may or may not even matter. It's just data at this point. One observation is that you do approach the cue ball with the cue on the same line for each shot, and then pivot or sweep the cue into the shot line. I also observed that you were doing 1/2 tip pivots, but I agree that this isn't really important. What is important or relevant is that you ended up on the correct shot line each time, and that shot line was at a greater and greater angle to your initial cue and body position as you stepped in. Since you were stepping in the same way each time you had to make a greater and greater pivot to the NISL. Let's come back to that below.
2. In your video you moved the balls forward and then at 11:20 you said that you got the AL/SL and then before you got the NISL you said you can already tell the perception looks different than the prior set up. This is confusing. Can you elaborate? For this inside B shot the AL is edge to B (center ob) and the SL center to left edge. If you are consciously trying to align to these two spots and can even confirm while down on the shot that you can still see the AL as edge to B and can still see the SL as center to left edge then how can that alignment appear any different from the prior one?
3. Given item 2 it seems like the mystery is occurring before you acquire the NISL. IF that is true, and I'm not married to that idea yet, then there is a contradiction with your first video. As I mentioned above in item 1, you entered into each shot exactly the same way with the same body orientation and cue alignment and that suggests you were seeing the sight lines the same way. It appeared that the larger and larger shifts to the shot line as you moved down table happened after you were already down on the shot. What I'm getting at is at what point does the perception change? In the first video you entered each shot on the exact same body line and then adjusted to the shot line in shooting position. In the second video you are saying that the AL/SL lines look different before you get down to shoot, which suggests that there won't be much of an adjustment to get to the shot line. I hope that makes some sense.
4. Do you think the NISL adjustment is a fixed angle for all shots? In Stan's 4th video he demonstrates how he learned about stepping the cue ball. He puts a cue ball with red dot facing up and 1.5 diamonds away from the rail diamond. He shows how to avert your eyes to the edge of the cb and that shifts the alignment between the red dot and where it crosses the diamond to the edge of the diamond, or about 1/4 inch from center. I did the math considering that the cb was 12.5" + 6.25" + 3.5" to the diamond, assuming Stan was using his 9 foot table. That means that the gaze at the cb edge shits center ball by 0.64 degrees, or just over a quarter inch for a two diamond separation shot as in our examples. That means the NISL procedure shifts the contact point by maybe half of that depending on how far apart the balls are. I'm not concluding anything about that other than to ask if the NISL is a fixed angle adjustment. Stan, to my knowledge, doesn't say but I do not have the book.
Again, good video.
My agenda is an interest in reality and the truth. If that road leads us to find that CTE is everything you think it is then terrific. I really don't care if I have been wrong for all this time. I find the debate interesting and find it hard to believe you guys buy into some of these explanations. However, it is a good thing to keep an open mind and consider that we all don't know everything.
Let's use an analogy. Global warming. I know you buy into it because you believe the politicians who tell you it is real. I know for a fact that you have never dug into the actual scientific papers because if you had you'd know that much of it is junk science disguised at something else. Go to climateaudit.org if you want a real education on good science. Back to my point: I said one time that a climate change scientist refused to release his data because he said "Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it"? You accused me of lying about that. Fact is the head of CRU at the U. of East Anglia in the UK said that. Dr. Phil Jones in 2004, one of the main figures in AGW research. You are acting like Phil Jones. You have convinced yourself of ideas that are wholly unproven but because you pocket balls and were friends with the inventor you are on a mission to spread his word. You said exactly that. So which one of us has an agenda?
Actually this sounds exactly like what you are doing to Mohrt. Taking his videos and trying to find fault instead of actually trying to shoot the shots yourself. You do have a table at home correct?
Not sure what you are reading. Several of my posts have been about hitting the shots. You should also know that "trying to find something wrong with it" is called peer review and is a critical component of science. That is different from trying to undermine a scientist by lying and falsifying data, which is not my intent (many climate scientists do that). With you and others on the 2x1 thing I don't take your first answer because those answers are often vague and don't get down to the nitty gritty the way mohrt did in his second video.
I stopped reading when you told me what I believe and why I believe it.
I should have stopped when you said you are only interested in reality and the truth. That is clearly not true.
You are only interested in what you think the truth is. Your truth, your reality.
For the record, there is nothing that I believe just because a politician said it.
And Dan, please don't talk about science and junk science since you put up the junkiest possible videos to attempt to discredit Stan and Mohrt.
Not going to go into another dialog about practicality but yes, results matter. And, I don't promote anything that I don't find to be practical and valuable to the user. I have many friends in this industry and not a single one of them has any product or service that I recommend to others simply because of the friendship.
It is because of such assumptions/accusations that I stopped thinking of you as sincere and only see you as malicious.
Pretty sure I have read you correctly on this. But please continue so that you can provide even more evidence of your true state of mind.
Not going to go into another dialog about practicality but yes, results matter. And, I don't promote anything that I don't find to be practical and valuable to the user. I have many friends in this industry and not a single one of them has any product or service that I recommend to others simply because of the friendship.
It is because of such assumptions/accusations that I stopped thinking of you as sincere and only see you as malicious.
Pretty sure I have read you correctly on this. But please continue so that you can provide even more evidence of your true state of mind.