best excuse this week

Re: best excuse this week

Tim Cheyne — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 18:18:11 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]

I asked because in horse-racing a well-known chocolate bar given to a horse just before a race is supposedly a killer blow for an unsuspecting trainer when the horse is tested post-race.

Tim.

[/quote]

Do tell............

[/quote]

The chocolate bar in the anecdote is the one that reputedly "helps you work, rest and play" but could refer to many others. What is not generally realised is that the 'dope' tests detect the constituents or the metabolites of the original substance (such as theobromine in chocolate) and some of these have a long half-life and hang around for some time. The laboratory reports the findings factually and it is up to whatever racing authority to determine whether the level reported constitutes a doping offence and what penalty to impose. A policy of 'zero tolerance' would appear to be the ideal but as tests have become so sensitive and as some drugs are legitimate treatment for horses not racing at that time, this could lead to injustice.

Tim.

Re: best excuse this week

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:11:37 GMT

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Would that work with dehydrated pets, you think? Nothing in there looks contraindicated…

[/quote]

In theory, Yes, and I have used it by spooning it in every few minutes but in practice many would perhaps baulk at the lemon taste or even the sweetness and not take it voluntarily. To administer large volumes I feel sure that IV infusion of a sterile solution is preferable.

Out here, sachets of almost identical composition and various flavours are readily available (usually called 'Rehydrat' or some similar ingenious name) but I have yet to see one with a flavour likely to appeal to a cat or dog. The original formulation was devised and taught to village people to use in the treatment of severe childhood gastroenteritis when medical help was not available. There is no doubt that it has helped save the lives of millions of kids.

Tim.

[/quote]

Certainly I'm not trying to replace IV fluids or anything; just I like to have a few things that clients can do at home. (Some of my clients like to do as much nursing as they can for their pets, and I like to have a list of helpful or at least harmless things they can do at home so they can feel like they have a part in the process.)

You know, for mild illness or something that doesn't really require hospitalization. Might not make a huge difference but some clients appreciate it. The ones that require intensive care are obviously hospitalized. :)

Re: best excuse this week

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:48:12 GMT

[quote user="Tim Cheyne"]

I asked because in horse-racing a well-known chocolate bar given to a horse just before a race is supposedly a killer blow for an unsuspecting trainer when the horse is tested post-race.

Tim.

[/quote]

Do tell............

Re: best excuse this week

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:23:54 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

In answer to Tim's post I don't think caffeine is on the proscribed list anymore except maybe at the level that you would have had to have so many coffees or natural sources that you would feel so sick you couldn't compete anyway.

[/quote]

I asked because in horse-racing a well-known chocolate bar given to a horse just before a race is supposedly a killer blow for an unsuspecting trainer when the horse is tested post-race.

Tim.

Re: best excuse this week

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:16:50 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]Would that work with dehydrated pets, you think? Nothing in there looks contraindicated…

[/quote]

Tim.

Re: best excuse this week

Bob Russell — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:30:06 GMT

Fat and fries - yummy!! I do prefer Diet Coke though!

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:45:40 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

Martin, I'm usually ok for around 100 miles with 2 bananas, 2 snack bars and 1.5 litres homemade sports drink. Beyond that usually need to refuel and rehydrate. This was a 200km audax with 15 miles each way to/from the start, so a 155 miler in all - just needed the fuel. Also needed a receipt from BK as it was an audax control point . Plus I had carb loaded on Guinness the night before and wasn't at my best I suppose to begin a 0700 audax.

Do you, or anyone else, think that sports drinks and sports energy bars are worth the money, and do you think they do what it says on the tin? I have my doubts.

[/quote]

This thread is in danger of getting irrelevant to the OP - hell it is irrelevant but it was a light hearted OP anyway. I've done up to 200km with the same protocol I would just carry a couple more power bars and refill my bottles with water blagged from a pub or some unwary household as necessay to maintain hydration. I may have some sachets of sports drink powder to add to that if I had a saddle bag/panniers which I may if it was that long a ride. Usually I don't do organised rides I just set my own agenda and ride off into the sunrise, so stopping at a control is not appropriate - the village shop perhaps. I have some forthright views on improving the rate of fat burning to preserve glycogen reserves in regards to cycling anyway, if anyone would like to hear them message me.

In answer to the question I find Hi5 4:1 drink has enabled me to further and faster as well compared with other products or just fresh water. I like Power Bars because they are so convenient to carry whether they are better than standard nutrition is another matter. I hate gels though I may carry one as an emergency reserve.

Re: best excuse this week

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:16:56 GMT

Would that work with dehydrated pets, you think? Nothing in there looks contraindicated…

Re: best excuse this week

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 06:16:19 GMT

For basic rehydration the simple Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) is quite good; one litre of clean water, 'four fingers' of crude brown sugar, 'one finger' (pinch) of salt, juice of lemon or lime. Works wonders in the deserts (and in cholera areas). The important part is the potassium in the lemon juice, the sugar works partly as a facilitator as well as providing some trace elements. Am not sure that the other 'sports' ingredients are necessary. If caffeine were included would it be considered a 'prohibited substance'(i.e. doping)?

Tim.

Re: best excuse this week

Utlendigur — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 23:02:57 GMT

I've never liked the ready-made sports drinks (always seemed too strong and slightly laxative), but a dash of the powdered version into a water bottle was quite good for taking away the taste of sheep-infested stream water on long fell runs. Then I became even more feral and just started slurping directly from the streams (works, unless you don't read the pre-event details that tell you there are no streams and the first water point is over 2hours into the race on a baking hot summer's day). I'd usually manage about 2hours run, then break out the dried mangoes and custard creams, but recently I've been converted to gels. Don't like the energy bars - especially having heard one make being described as "looking and tasting like a Jack Russell's d*ck" - not sure how the person did his research for the comparison!

Re: best excuse this week

Clive Ansell — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:10:48 GMT

Do you, or anyone else, think that sports drinks and sports energy bars are worth the money, and do you think they do what it says on the tin? I have my doubts.

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:33:44 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

I was forced to eat a Burger King meal 10 days ago as it was a control point on a cycling event and there was nothing else.

[/quote]

The answer to that is to train yourself to burn fat more efficiently to save your glygogen stores and take all you need with you Clive, 1.5 litres of Hi5 4+1 energy drink and a couple of Power Bars will see me through 100+ hilly miles then I don't need to stop.

Re: best excuse this week

Clive Ansell — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:37:06 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Perhaps there should be additional duty on all McD meals but please not Burger King because that is my preference!!

[/quote]

You're joking. I was forced to eat a Burger King meal 10 days ago as it was a control point on a cycling event and there was nothing else. it was greasy disgusting sh-eye-t, I thew half of it away. There not even real chips, just deep fried extruded amorphous mush. Vile. It is no wonder we are turning into a nation of moribundly obese lard arses.

Re: best excuse this week

bob lehner — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:20:56 GMT

Well I'm happy to report that I have never once set foot in any 'fast-food' outlet.

My (ex) father-in-law, who was a pompous old fa*t once took his grandchildren to a Macdonalds for a 'treat'. I believe they serve a bun with some sort of offal inside, along with French fries. Anyway, he called over one of the staff and said 'Excuse me, but I don't seem to have a knife and fork - and could I see the wine list'. Embarrassed kids.

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:20:12 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Have I told you my one and only Burger King experience story? It's a bit long.

[/quote]

With that (un)smiley I presume it didn't have a happy ending Evelyn so perhaps best not to tell us. I do have a weakness for McDoo's cheese 1/4 pounder (I'm salivating at the thought of it) I reckon they put something in it that's addictive (fat probably) but I then feel guilty and have a queasy feeling like I've eaten something that isn't settling easily for the rest of the day and vow never to eat another (until the next time). Being as I'm 6ft and 65kg I guess the odd one isn't going to do me much harm

Re: best excuse this week

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:59:03 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Perhaps there should be additional duty on all McD meals but please not Burger King because that is my preference!!

[/quote]

Have I told you my one and only Burger King experience story? It's a bit long.

Re: best excuse this week

Bob Russell — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:05:23 GMT

Perhaps there should be additional duty on all McD meals but please not Burger King because that is my preference!!

Re: best excuse this week

Rob Loxley — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:30:18 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]We've got ourselves a conspiracy theory[/quote]

We just need the NOTW to do some investigative journalism....

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:57:14 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]But as food is zero rated they don't make much from fat b******s[/quote]

Not everything we eat is zero rated: e.g. sweets, crisps, take-aways, ice cream etc.

[/quote]

In fact all the stuff that fat b******s eat in abundance. Good point, so the treasury is making a profit out of taxes on poor diets which is more than it costs for the fat b*******s' gastric band surgery. We've got ourselves a conspiracy theory.

Re: best excuse this week

Rob Loxley — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:05:55 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]But as food is zero rated they don't make much from fat b******s[/quote]

Not everything we eat is zero rated: e.g. sweets, crisps, take-aways, ice cream etc.

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:15:20 GMT

[quote user="Laurence Webb"]

Smokers also contribute hugely to the treasury in taxes before dropping dead of heart attacks or dying early from lung cancer. It's only the selfish buggers who have strokes or get emphysema that cost a lot.

It would be interesting to know what the true cost/benefit to the Treasury is. If you smoke 20 a day you're probably paying arouund £5 in tax and VAT. Do that for 40 years and drop dead at 60 (whilst you've been working and paying income tax and NI as well) and you're a net asset to the country.

[/quote]

It has long been a wonder to me why, given the obvious toll on the health system why sales of cigarettes wasn't made illegal years ago. I guess this is the answer, the treasury has clearly done its sums and gets more from tax on fags than it spends on the health consequences of them The same may well apply to alcohol. But as food is zero rated they don't make much from fat b******s, but then they wont lose as much either when they die early. So I'm the one that should be pillaried as I'm likely to see my telegram from the queen (assuming I don't die riding into a tree or falling off a mountain) and cost the state a lot in pensions.

Re: best excuse this week

Mark Holmes — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:55:25 GMT

I once did an essay for a business course on the costs of smoking.... they are actually small. Smokers typically die before they get REALLY expensive so from a tax perspective when you consider what they pay in and what they don't cost in terms of long term care reduced smoking will ultimately increase the burden on the NHS and society.

There are lots of reasons to stop smoking but the cost burden is not one of them. That is where the NHS is always on a loser, they never save costs they just push them onto a different department. Reduce heart disease ultimately leads to increased costs for cancer care, reduce the incidence of cancer and the associated costs ultimately leads to increased costs for the treatment of dementia. When politicians talk about reducing the cost burden by prevention they assume the person saved will die cheaply somewhere. Unless there is a covert plan to introduce special death buses to mow down the elderly it won't happen.

Re: best excuse this week

Laurence Webb — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:33:05 GMT

Re: best excuse this week

Bob Russell — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:11:24 GMT

I think there are calculations that show that over a lifetime smokers and obese individuals cost the country less in the long run as these people die younger. They are less likely to 'hang on' to the bitter end costing the tax payer lots of money - selfish bu**ers!

Please note the tongue in cheek smiley!

Re: best excuse this week

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:16:42 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

That could be a whole new debate, and open up a whole new can of worms. where should and shouldn't NHS treatment be given/denied?? I make the choice to go cycling and ice climbing (not at the same time) -should I receive NHS care if I have an accident ?? some would argue no, as I have chosen to engage in what some would say are reckless and dangerous activities (they're not) and I could/should take out insurance - but I have paid my taxes etc etc, so should get NHS (not free) treatment. Equally, should alcoholics, drug addicts, self harmers, those with a genetic predisposition to any disease get NHS care ??? where does one define the boundaries??

[/quote]

You like me Clive risk your life and limbs and occasionally we get it wrong but overall the money the NHS has to spend patching us up is far less than it would have to pay if we had lifestyle induced heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer, cirrhosis etc. That said the numerous broken bones and torn ligaments I've suffered from cycle racing, skiiing and snowboarding have not cost the NHS very much because I do have private medical insurance. There was no altruistic reason of saving the NHS money for that, merely that I wanted to be treated promptly and in comfort. I keep healthy and resent my taxes going to pay for a couch potatoes who don't because they don't make the right lifestyle choices. Maybe we could extend this debate to those of us who worked hard and got a decent job not having to be expected to pay out for those wasters who chose not to and live permanently off the state. The problem is we then have to include a whole can of worms of sociological circumstances. Its easy to judge from the moral high ground.