Re: Chris's Warrior Menu

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> and , I guess I'd better qualify what " dent " means.. I'm

> guessing that an hour of non-stop heavy weight training for 170 lb. man

> would be about 400 calories or so? Maybe that's a dent in 5000 calories? So

> then we add in some other daily activities and that leaves you with a

> resting-metabolism-rate of -- and I'm being generous here -- certainly no

> fewer than 4000 calories/day to use up with metabolism. Still seems high to

> me...

I have no idea if that's accurate. A 10-minute cardio warmup can burn

me over 100 calories, and from what I've read, squatting burns more

calories than cardio, so I'd think it would be more.

But you missed the point that each of us made. It isn't the workout

itself that makes such a big dent in the calories, but the growth and

repair phase that is kicked in for a good 3-5 days after the workout.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Do you have a reference for the alkalinizing effect of food? That's

> Chris

I know there was a reference to it in the " famous " Townsend letter of

July 2004.. I think they said that your " resting " stomach acid was

ideally something like 2 but when you ate, it went all the way to

almost 7…

I also know it was mentioned in the book, " Why Stomach Acid is Good

For You " by J. , M.D. I have the book right next to me but it

has no index (the only thing I don't like about this book. grrrr.) so

it'll take me a bit to find the reference.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>I also know it was mentioned in the book, " Why Stomach Acid is Good

>For You " by J. , M.D. I have the book right next to me but it

>has no index (the only thing I don't like about this book. grrrr.) so

>it'll take me a bit to find the reference.

The current version on Amazon has an index you can check

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871319314/qid=1121799139/sr=8-1/\

ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0422969-8852908?v=glance & s=books & n=507846)

though I don't know that the pagination will be exactly the same.

-

[Guest guest]

> But you missed the point that each of us made. It isn't the workout

> itself that makes such a big dent in the calories, but the growth and

> repair phase that is kicked in for a good 3-5 days after the workout.

>

> Chris

Yes. I'm with ya. And I agree. But that will work for any diet. I'm

looking for some measure on *this* diet because I'm intrigued by the

feast/fast aspect of the thing and I don't think Ori made a very good

case for it in the book. I'm not saying it doesn't work or isn't good,

I'd just like to get to the bottom of it here.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

You guys are making me work! :-) Okay here's the first site because

it's easiest. Great article by the way. I hope everybody reads

(rereads)it.

http://www.townsendletter.com/July2004/unseenepidemic0704.htm

" Gastric Acid Release in Response to Food

HCl is secreted at approximately 10% of maximal rate into the

resting stomach and, with nothing to neutralize the acid, maintains

the pH in the range of 1.8-2.8. In the empty stomach the hydrogen

ion concentration provides a feedback loop that stops production of

acid once a pH of 1.8-2.0 is reached, so preventing over-

acidification.

The sensory stimuli, which are activated just prior to eating,

provoke strong release of gastric juice depending on the quantity

and type of food eaten. However, this is balanced upon ingestion,

because the food itself has a buffering or neutralizing effect on

the pH value. This typically results in the pH of the full stomach

being between 3.5-4.5. Following a meal the pH decreases once more

back to empty stomach level of 1.8-2.8. "

And then they have a graph showing " Figure 2. Hourly intragastric

acidity in nine subjects eating six normal meals during a 24-hour

period (Redrawn from Pounder & Frazer, 1993) "

*****The point I was trying to make was that a very big meal eaten

over a relatively lengthy amount of time might cause one's stomach

acid to become and stay alkaline. I think this makes the stomach

churn harder and the food be less well absorbed assimilated and so

on.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> *****The point I was trying to make was that a very big meal eaten

> over a relatively lengthy amount of time might cause one's stomach

> acid to become and stay alkaline. I think this makes the stomach

> churn harder and the food be less well absorbed assimilated and so

> on.

But the data you produced doesn't compare length or size of meals. In

a healthy functioning stomach, it will regulate itself so that the pH

is right where it needs to be. If the pH is too high, then the

resources necessary to acidify it are being exhausted. We would need

to see some comparison between the body's ability to deal with less

frequent larger meals and more frequent smaller meals and which

exhausts the resources necessary to produce gastric juices more.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>On the other hand, low carbing, while it didn't affect my strength

>gains, did affect my energy somewhat. I think some of it can be

>attributed to the fact that the amount of carbs that you can eat and

>still remain in ketosis goes up the more active you are, and that

>probably needs to be carefully monitored. I can easily consume a lot

>more net carbs a day and still have that ketostix right in the purple

>area if I am very active with sports and weights. I think some of it

>may be that the diet really needs to be very high in fat when doing

>this. And I think some of it may be that it takes quite awhile to make

>the change over such that you *feel* as good as you did as before.

>

>

,

Definitely it is true that carbs can increase directly with activity

levels. I am finding I crave more sweets than before as I up the

mileage, but I remain starch-free basically. I feel great running, and

I can lift when I get around to it (which isn't much lately), but I

don't feel as strong. But I can do the strength training. Must be all

in me head.

>I know of number of elite athletes who have tried low carbing, but

>used it only for temporary purposes. The adjustment period is just too

>long so they drop it. Unless you are a Tiger Woods who was young

>enough to make a major adjustment to his game (and he still was making

>HUGE money even though he wasn't winning majors), a year of

>sub-optimal performance can be death for many elite athletes.

>

>But I'm sure some trainers are getting some younger folks on this path.

>

>

My thoughts exactly. We shall soon see the next generation, and some of

them won't be on the high-carb bandwagon.

>FWIW, the old time bodybuilders did low carb, but once drugs entered

>the sport they couldn't compete with the kind of results

>bodybuilding+drugs produced.

>

>

I was wondering about this too. What is the macronutrient breakdown of

the new school of tuna, skinless chicken breast, egg whites, protein

powder, veg and rice?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> > [robin] The point I was trying to make was that a very big meal

> > eaten over a relatively lengthy amount of time might cause one's

> > stomach acid to become and stay alkaline. I think this makes the

> > stomach churn harder and the food be less well absorbed,

> > assimilated and so on.

> [chris] But the data you produced doesn't compare length or size

> of meals. In

> a healthy functioning stomach, it will regulate itself so that the pH

> is right where it needs to be. If the pH is too high, then the

> resources necessary to acidify it are being exhausted. We would need

> to see some comparison between the body's ability to deal with less

> frequent larger meals and more frequent smaller meals and which

> exhausts the resources necessary to produce gastric juices more.

>

> Chris

Hi Your operative words here are " healthy functioning stomach " ;

That's why I think the Warrior diet is for people who are in great

physical health to begin with and that probably leaves a lot of the

people on this list out in the cold.

I mean how many people came to 's list because they had healthy

functioning digestive tracts? How many people on the planet would go

to the trouble of learning this much about diet except those of us who

have " compromised " digestion or have someone near and dear to us

affected with suspected food problems.

(In fact, let me digress a bit and say that I think that's why gluten

and food allergies come up on these NT lists so often; I don't think

we are the " general population " so when you hear figures like " 1 in

133 people are gluten-intolerant " that might well be the case in " the

real world " but on this list it might very well be " 1 in 35 people " .

And I don't know what the genetic make-up is here but if you realize

that most people who are gluten-intolerant are Anglos or have

ancestors from northern europe, well, the odds get even greater.)

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. The cite you're referring to was

a support of what I think might be a trend: the more food in your

stomach at the same time, the less acidic the environment. Of course I

don't know this, I was simply entertaining the notion because, as I

mentioned, there are plenty of people here who have insufficiencies of

enzymes and acid and they might want to consider all the angles before

embarking on a plan like WD.

Also, because I made the stomach acid argument, doesn't necessarily

mean I think feast/fast is bad or good because I happen to think a

person could modify the feast aspect of the thing to accomodate an

achloriydic stomach if there was enough of a health benefit involved.

Shoot, I'll try anything to get better! Problem is, I've only heard

anecdotal evidence of its benefits and some reference to mice studies.

I got into this discussion because I think we're sort of squinting at

some of the diet's potential liabilities. While I respect you and the

folks on this list who are doing the protocol, (and note that most of

you have modified a lot of what is recommended in the book,) the

impression I have of the author, Ori, is that he is an arrogant jerk

and that makes it a little harder for me to give the guy the benefit

of the doubt..

Have I said too much? :-D

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>How many people on the planet would go

>to the trouble of learning this much about diet except those of us who

>have " compromised " digestion or have someone near and dear to us

>affected with suspected food problems.

That's the tragic irony of the situation, isn't it. Most people spend

their youth blithely poisoning themselves, and by the time their health has

suffered (and the health of their children has suffered and got off on the

wrong foot to begin with) they're often stuck too deep in a rut to realize

where they should really be heading.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> Hi Your operative words here are " healthy functioning stomach " ;

> That's why I think the Warrior diet is for people who are in great

> physical health to begin with and that probably leaves a lot of the

> people on this list out in the cold.

The other operative words referred to the lack of data showing the

difference between large infrequent meals and small frequent meals.

That an unhealthy digestive system would be unable to handle diets

that place greater stress on the digestive system, that doesn't tell

us anything about the WD until we know whether one large meal is on

the whole more stressful to the digestive system than 3 or 6 small

ones.

> I mean how many people came to 's list because they had healthy

> functioning digestive tracts? How many people on the planet would go

> to the trouble of learning this much about diet except those of us who

> have " compromised " digestion or have someone near and dear to us

> affected with suspected food problems.

Agreed.

> Anyway, back to the subject at hand. The cite you're referring to was

> a support of what I think might be a trend: the more food in your

> stomach at the same time, the less acidic the environment. Of course I

> don't know this, I was simply entertaining the notion because, as I

> mentioned, there are plenty of people here who have insufficiencies of

> enzymes and acid and they might want to consider all the angles before

> embarking on a plan like WD.

But the article you provided said absolutely nothing indicating

anything relating to sizes of meals or frequency of meals. All we

know is that the stomach is less acidic when there is food in it than

when it is empty. (By the way, this seems odd, since the pH was, I

believe, higher than what is needed to make pepsin active.)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>until we know whether one large meal is on

>the whole more stressful to the digestive system than 3 or 6 small

>ones.

I don't know about 3 meals a day, but 6 is definitely more stressful to the

whole system, not just those elements directly involved in digestion.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> > " I don't remember whether I said

> > anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it

is

> > important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> > their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> > isolated variable and important indicator of health?

> >

> Oh my goodness, Gene!! you really ARE judgemental!! LOLOLOL!!!

so apparently i've got 4 strikes against me in your book: i'm a

Christian, i'm fat, i'm stupid and i'm flakey!! LOLOL!!!! can i throw

old in there? maybe ugly? let's see what else...

Gene, my friend (or not)...is there an ounce of compassion in your

body???

laura

[Guest guest]

-

> >

> > > " I don't remember whether I said

> > > anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it

>is

> > > important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> > > their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> > > isolated variable and important indicator of health?

>

> > >

> > Oh my goodness, Gene!! you really ARE judgemental!! LOLOLOL!!!

>

>so apparently i've got 4 strikes against me in your book: i'm a

>Christian, i'm fat, i'm stupid and i'm flakey!! LOLOL!!!! can i throw

>old in there? maybe ugly? let's see what else...

>

>Gene, my friend (or not)...is there an ounce of compassion in your

>body???

If you're going to complain about what Gene says, you ought to complain

about what he actually says. Nowhere (that I've seen, anyway) has he said

anything derogative about fat people, for example.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, laurainnewjersey <laurabusse@...> wrote:

>

> >

> > > " I don't remember whether I said

> > > anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it

> is

> > > important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> > > their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> > > isolated variable and important indicator of health?

>

> > >

> > Oh my goodness, Gene!! you really ARE judgemental!! LOLOLOL!!!

>

> so apparently i've got 4 strikes against me in your book: i'm a

> Christian, i'm fat, i'm stupid and i'm flakey!! LOLOL!!!! can i throw

> old in there? maybe ugly? let's see what else...

>

> Gene, my friend (or not)...is there an ounce of compassion in your

> body???

>

> laura

You know, I don't feel like digging it up, but I thought it was Chris

who said what you quoted. Maybe I am getting confused. Time to sign

off for the night.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

Re: Chris's Warrior Menu

>

> > " I don't remember whether I said

> > anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it

is

> > important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> > their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> > isolated variable and important indicator of health?

> >

> Oh my goodness, Gene!! you really ARE judgemental!! LOLOLOL!!!

so apparently i've got 4 strikes against me in your book: i'm a

Christian, i'm fat, i'm stupid and i'm flakey!! LOLOL!!!! can i throw

old in there? maybe ugly? let's see what else...

" Gene, my friend (or not)...is there an ounce of compassion in your

body???

laura "

You might want to research your quotes before you blame me, ok?

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: Chris's Warrior Menu

-

> >

> > > " I don't remember whether I said

> > > anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it

>is

> > > important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

> > > their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

> > > isolated variable and important indicator of health?

>

> > >

> > Oh my goodness, Gene!! you really ARE judgemental!! LOLOLOL!!!

>

>so apparently i've got 4 strikes against me in your book: i'm a

>Christian, i'm fat, i'm stupid and i'm flakey!! LOLOL!!!! can i throw

>old in there? maybe ugly? let's see what else...

>

>Gene, my friend (or not)...is there an ounce of compassion in your

>body???

" If you're going to complain about what Gene says, you ought to complain

about what he actually says. Nowhere (that I've seen, anyway) has he said

anything derogative about fat people, for example. "

Now , surely you don't deny that fat people are evil, do you?

I didn't even make that quote. I did make some negative comments about it,

however.

[Guest guest]

Well the quote was from me, as thought. I'm not sure where

the confusion came, but Gene, there have been quite a few of your

posts where the quoted text and new text was adjascent instead of

separated by a space, which makes the email hard to read. I had some

similar trouble when I was using AOL's mail, which composes in html by

default. So if you *are* putting the spaces in and they aren't coming

out in the final post, you might want to see if you can switch to

plain text if you're in html.

, I'm not really that judgmental. I usually make up excuses to

brush off the stupidity so I don't have to look down on people. Like

the kid in the gym was young. Or the P.A. in the doctor's office was

just exposed to so many charts and so much literature with weight as a

stand-alone variable, and so many people day in day out that just want

to lose weight, that she couldn't help believing it all, or assuming

it without much thought.

Actually I was just dramatizing the stupidity of the concept.

Gene, I never responded to your remarks to this quote. Yes, I agree

that weight can be a variable to take into account (with the large

caveats noted), but in the two cases I noted, the P.A. knew

nothing about me or why my weight dropped, but simply assumed it was a

good thing, even though I am clearly not fat, and the kid at the gym

explicitly stated his desire to build muscle. Even if he didn't,

doing weight lifting exercises would unavoidably build muscle and make

it impossible to judge how much fat he'd lost.

When I wrote: " how can you consider *weight* as an isolated variable

and important indicator of health? " I specifically referred to using

weight as an *isolated* variable, not simply the use of weight as a

variable at all.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Now , surely you don't deny that fat people are evil, do you?

I guess that would make me moderately but decreasingly evil. I think most

people would disagree.

>I didn't even make that quote. I did make some negative comments about it,

>however.

Come to think of it, you're right. Sorry I wasn't paying better

attention. (You do kind of leave your door open for problems of that

nature, though, since your system of backquoting is so cruddy and

inconsistent.)

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > If it's true that the stomach empties larger meals more quickly, it just

> > indicates that larger meals place greater demands on the stomach to produce

> > acid, intrinsic factor and so on, meaning that the consequences of

> > inadequacy will be correspondingly greater.

>

>While those things may or may not be true, no, it doesn't indicate

>that. It just reflects the fact that two things are more likely to

>collide when the concentration of either is greater. There is one

>sphinctor at one specific spot in the stomach that can allow 3mL of

>chyme (basically liquified or mushed food) through at a time. So, if

>the food is scattered through the stomach, then at each chance the

>sphinctor has a chance to pump chyme through, there is a

>proportionally smaller chance that the chyme will be in the right

>place at that time to be let through. The more food let into the

>stomach at one time, the greater the concentration of chyme, and the

>more likely that there will be chyme knocking on the door, so to

>speak, when the door man opens it.

First, the stomach isn't exactly like a large room in which food can be

scattered about. It's not exactly like a balloon, growing to fit the

amount of food it contains, either, but it's also constantly churning stuff

around.

Second, and more importantly, if large meals empty faster, and because

large meals demand the production of more gastric juices, then large meals

will be more of a problem for people with digestive problems. I'd think

this would be obvious. No?

-

[Guest guest]

Robin-

>I think we're missing a variable: Without an accurate

>resting-metabolism-rate, isn't it hard to come to any sort of conclusion?

Well, sure, that would be ideal, but it would also be important to get very

accurate body composition measurements. And at some point it becomes

academic. People have to find out what works for them.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/20/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> First, the stomach isn't exactly like a large room in which food can be

> scattered about. It's not exactly like a balloon, growing to fit the

> amount of food it contains, either, but it's also constantly churning stuff

> around.

I know that it is constantly churning stuff around. I'm not sure what

you're trying to say.

> Second, and more importantly, if large meals empty faster, and because

> large meals demand the production of more gastric juices, then large meals

> will be more of a problem for people with digestive problems. I'd think

> this would be obvious. No?

It's certainly plausible but I wouldn't call it " obvious, " because I

don't know what the beneficial effects of longer rest periods would

be, and whether or not they would compensate or over-compensate for a

larger meal size. I thought you've repeatedly said in the past that

you thought larger and fewer meals were less stressful than frequent

small meals?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Re: a " stuffed " stomach, I've always considered my problem to be mainly one

of not having enough digestive juices to do the job. But as a secondary

consideration, it has also occured to me that it would be less easy (because

of less room) for the contents to churn properly, exposing *all* the

material to those juices. (I sometimes read of pets who get into unbaked

dough that hasn't yet risen. When it rises in the stomach, there is no way

for the acids to get to the mass, and if there's no medical intervention,

the pet dies.)

I should, add, too, that any " stuffing " -- especially if it happens within a

few hours of bedtime, invariably leads to nightmares for me. I think dreams

are random firings of neurons (in the process of doing what they need to do

during shutdown time), but when any organ of the body is stressed, I think

the alarm messages it sends to the brain " speak " directly to those neurons

that are associated, from the past, with other dangers.

http://www.taichi4seniors.com

[Guest guest]

>[chris to paul] I thought you've repeatedly said in the past that

>you thought larger and fewer meals were less stressful than frequent

>small meals?

>Chris

Hi I'd agree with that fewer meals are better than more. First,

I'd better point out that even in this gut-ravaged group I'm guessing I have

one of the most thrashed digestion systems around due to recent full-on

confirmed-through-biopsy celiac disease. (I have Marsh stage IIIC scarring

of the lining of my small intestine which means there's just not much left

and, because I went so long undiagnosed, there's a danger it won't repair

itself anymore.) I also produce no stomach acid due to an h. pylori

bacteria-caused ulcer that blocked my gastric canal for a while 2 years ago.

I must rely on an array of enzyme and hydrochloric acid supplements to get

my food in the best possible form for what teensy remaining villi I have to

absorb the calories/nutrients into my system. I can't even THINK of eating

without having some HCl with the food. I have a lot of rebuilding to do and

not a very big calorie allowance to do it.

Of course, I realize that this is not the norm so maybe my experience should

be discarded. However, for the purposes of this discussion, allow for a

minute that I might be the " canary in the coalmine " so to speak; I'm

suggesting that a person with a healthy functioning stomach and digestive

tract might not feel the nuances :-) of digestion that I (or some of the

other woebegone members of our coterie) experience.

To that end, here are the basic foods and times that cause the least stress

to my ailing system (not based on science just tried and true.) I try to not

have more than 5 foods at any one sitting and I try to have them warm or at

room temperature:

8AM: lemon juice/water and a baked apple with a little coconut oil (winter)

or lemon juice/water and fermented fruit and a little raw almond butter

(summer)

11AM (big meal) Calves liver (very rare to raw) or raw ground buffalo (mixed

up with an egg yolk), or salmon or egg omelette (with raw egg yolks as

recommended here.) Along with these proteins I have kim chee or sauer kraut

and steamed dark leafy greens that have been ground up well in the cuisinart

with garlic and coconut oil and salt.

3:30-ish (snack) Thorne amino acid drink supplement called MediClear (blend

it with an egg yolk) or raw celery juice made in my Greenpower juicer

5PM (big meal) close to same as the 11AM meal. Sometimes a glass of red

wine.

9PM Starchy snack - either banana (carefully chewed!!) or 2 TBSP Fruit-eze

(which is a blend of ground up raisins, prunes and dates)

I'm probably missing something -- there's about 6 TBSP of fat in there for

example and it's always taken with foods. I eat about 1400 calories/day and

try to walk after each of the big meals. I also get at least an hour of low

to medium exercise like yoga or light weight training (just started back!) I

rest a lot more than the average Joe..

Note: If I happen to have to go without food for longer than say 8 hours or

so, my body goes into a shaky shattered mode where I am very stressed-- I

feel like broken glass inside. This stress affects me for several days

afterward. In fact the morning after an event like that I feel as though I

have a wicked hangover.

And if I happen to eat too much -- in terms of volume -- at any one sitting

(more than about 2 cups) I have digestion problems that include a great deal

of bloating and constipation. I feel that the food is staying in my stomach

too long and is fermenting.

BTW, 2 years ago I was able to eat about 4000 calories a day. Then I had the

ulcer that triggered the celiac syndrome. I'm guessing that the gluten I was

eating (and all that beer!!) was compromising my digestion and, although I

had no symptoms whatsoever, ravaging my guts. I'm pretty sure that's why I

wasn't absorbing the calories and nutrients in my food. And that's why I got

started in this thread: I was concerned that having the ability to consume a

lot of calories may not always be a sign of good health. I hope I'm wrong.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >I don't know if this has any application here, but IIRC the authors of

> >the Carbohydrates Addicts Diet state that you have one hour upon

> >commencing a starchy meal to eat as much as you want without any

> >negative effects.

>

> That's a fantasy, in my experience.

That is interesting. Atkins incorporated that very principle in his

later books as a way for people to handle it when they end up eating

more carbs than they should. Get it all done in an hour before the

second rush of insulin hits.

> >It takes several days. However if one wants to remain in the ketogenic

> >state while occasionally munching on more carbs, then one has to be

> >ketogenic for two weeks straight. Such is the basis for cyclical

> >ketogenic style diets.

>

> I thought many cyclical ketogenic diets involved low-carbing during the

> week and high-carbing on the weekend.

They do, but they begin it with at least a two week phase of being in

ketosis. Otherwise the one or two day reversal won't work. You will

end up out of ketosis. Personally I have had one day reversals after

being in ketosis and was able to stay in ketosis even after that one

day.

> >Thus cream of chicken soup <G>

>

> Exactly!

Yeah, it looks like heeded the call.

[Guest guest]

-

>That is interesting. Atkins incorporated that very principle in his

>later books as a way for people to handle it when they end up eating

>more carbs than they should. Get it all done in an hour before the

>second rush of insulin hits.

I suppose you can LESSEN the damage by confining your binge to an hour, but

like I said, in my experience that's a very, very far thing from no damage

at all. Much closer to full damage than no damage, in fact.

-