You're saying health care shouldn't be about social justice? Seriously?? Wow... you really are a cold-hearted bastard, aren't you? I assume you feel the same way about, say, the third world food crisis?
As they say, anyone that is a Republican when they're 20 doesn't have a heart. Anyone that is a Democrat when they're 30 doesn't have a brain.
There are things we can fix. Third world hunger is one of them. And we can even fix and treat many medical conditions. But it is an absolute absurdity to presume that health care is a question of social justice or fairness. No-one can guarantee health no matter how much money you throw at it. There are health conditions that simply cannot be fixed. It sucks, but socializing our health care system isn't going to change that. People will get sick and people will die. Simply giving "free" health care to everyone might make you feel better, but it's not at all clear that it will make the patient any better off.
Basically, I think it might be better if we switched to a system where everyone is a contractor.
Absolutely! I've been working as a consultant for the last 10 years and 100% believe everyone should be. Mostly because then everyone would realize just how much they are REALLY paying in taxes and there would be an immediate demand to bring taxes down to reasonable levels.
Taxes just aren't real when they are withheld from paychecks. Citizens need to write a check each quarter to really understand how much money they're throwing away.
I could've paid nearly half my mortgage in the last three years if I didn't have to pay federal taxes. So could have many people. But so few people realize it because they never see the money to start with.
I'd say that just about anyone who thinks we need to raise taxes probably isn't self-employed and so doesn't really fathom just how much we're already paying.
It's not the cost (and requirement) of medical school that increases the cost of health care. It's the lack of competition--which is actually exacerbated by health insurance since it hides the true cost from consumers.
I agree we need to let the free market work but we won't actually accomplish that by lowering the bar for doctors.
Same here. Every company I deal with--and I deal with BIG ones--seem to jump through hoops to make sure I understand my information is secure.
I've also never had an employer ask me for authorization to pull my credit report. Unless the position involved directly handling insane amounts of money, I would decline any such request.
Errors are a shame but are not indictments of the success of the medicines used by proper doctors. Ironically, the fact that your mom's neighbor almost died actually prove the friggin' medicine worked exactly as it was supposed to. That it was over-used does not make the medicine any less valid when administered properly.
Many herbal and traditional treatments do work. Many don't.
I'd go out on the edge and say MOST herbal/traditional treatments don't work. That isn't to detract from those that do, but the "industry" is flooded with so many scams and quackery that finding a legitimate solution becomes damn near impossible.
I'm not going to respond to this troll-bait, other than to say:
How exactly does that translate as "defense"?
See my response to the other person that responded to the same message you did. I'll be happy to discuss the issue but I do not give much credence to trolling. If you want to respond to the other ongoing exchange in a productive manner, feel free. Otherwise, please refrain from trolling.
Its also a LOT of money not going to any productive use.
National defense is one of the few things that the government does that IS productive and achieves its stated goals. What major country in the world hasn't been significantly destroyed by foreign forces in the last 200 years? I haven't checked but there aren't many other than the U.S.
Whether Iraq or Afghanistan are worthwhile endeavors is open to debate. But the effectiveness of our military is not.
When was the last time our National Defense actually did "defense". Its been playing offense in places that have nothing to do with the U.S. including Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada and Korea, Western Europe in World War I, Spanish American, Mexican wars.
That's a little naive. Heck, even WWII was arguably not "defense" because we didn't prevent the onslaught of Japan and Germany wasn't going to invade the U.S. homeland any time soon. But that is precisely why our defense has been so effective: We don't have a history of waiting to be up against the wall with an overwhelming enemy invasion. We take care of business pretty promptly. Which is also interesting since Bush has caught a lot of grief for "preemptive" attacks when there is ample precedent for that in U.S. history and is, in fact, a large reason why we haven't been nearly as damaged by wars as most other major countries in the world the last couple of centuries.
So if you want to work for free and offer your expertise we do allow that.
Really makes you wonder what the tax money is being spent on. It's not like citizens are being stingy paying taxes. We pay a LOT of taxes. Yet the state still can't manage the money nor can it make logical business decisions any better than companies that only look far enough into the future to address their next quarterly earnings.
And people wonder why conservatives like me don't want the government "fixing" our problems for us and why we'd rather just pay lower taxes for fewer "services." The only service the government really offers is the national defense and money mismanagement. Granted, they're very good at both.
My place of employment recently hired on a junior programmer, and I believe is looking for several more. Just don't expect to do any real programming - odds are, you'll be creating reports, rearranging gui widgets, or any number of other tedious tasks.
I'll be damned... just like MY first professional programming job back in 1990! It was grunt work making reports that would actually print the right fields at the right place on literally thousands of forms. BEFORE something like Crystal Reports existed. We literally had to do FOR-NEXT loops to print blank lines, print a field, test it, see if it lined up, and then remove or add more iterations to the loop to compensate. Which was a pain if one field lined up but another didn't--then we had to print them on different logical lines and split the FOR-NEXT loops, etc. I believe I was earning $14k/year at the time, just marginally better than working at McDonald's. But at least I was IN THE DOOR in my industry of interest.
In other words, Earth calling young people new to the workforce: You're going to have to "do your time" with the sh*t jobs just like those of us that are making $100k+ today had to a couple decades ago. Do your time and in 10-20 years, you'll be making decent money and having fun, too.
Really? I haven't seen any evidence of that. If anything the older people are the people that actually know how things work and have the motivation to get things done.
I'll take a 50 or 60-year old with 20-30 years of experience to a recent college grad any day of the week. Without thinking twice.
Short-term it would be worse. Long-term it would almost definitely be better.
People relying on government to support them would certainly suffer, social security and Medicare...gone.
No-one argues that liberal economic policy is like a drug and people have become dependent on it. It's about the only thing that keeps liberals in power. And it WILL eventually collapse under its own weight. The only question is whether we decide to take a proactive solution and start dismantling it slowly or wait until the cow manure hits the fan and it all collapses at once.
What would happen to all the weapons the military has laying around, would someone invade us or would peace break out all over when the worlds biggest and most aggressive country stopped being big and aggressive?
The national defense is one of the few things the federal government does today that actually has a constitutional basis. I don't think anyone suggests getting rid of our military. It's one of the VERY few things our government has done that actually WORKS (when liberals aren't busy undermining it and/or its mission, anyway).
If you still had local police would crime remain in check, though all the state and Federal prisons would be closed down?
Again, you are talking about shutting down legitimate aspects of government that no-one except for anarchists advocates shutting down.
What conservatives argue against are social programs such as social security, Medicare, etc. Those weren't a part of the federal government envisioned by the founding fathers even though poverty was arguably *worse* back then than it is now. And if you got rid of the nonsensical and massively expensive social spending, the state and federal governments could still do their constitutionally-mandated jobs AND we could pay a lot less in taxes which would lead to a more productive economy in which fewer people would need the liberal social programs they depend on today.
You're running a numbers game, but don't for a second think that international mail is any safer than hand carrying.
Actually, you just affirmed that it IS safer. The numbers state that the probability of your international mail being inspected is lower than what you carry through TSA. Thus it is safer. No, not immune, but safer.
... one thing that they all agree on is that more muscle mass is better as part of a comprehensive weight loss or fitness program.
I agree.
So I stand by weight training as being a worthwhile part of any exercise program and well worth the effort.
And I never said otherwise.
I was simply replying to the original question posted in the summary: "Do any Slashdotters have a regular workout routine that can be performed in the privacy of the home to stave off those pounds?" If the concern is "staving off those pads," cardio like biking and running is the most effective. That is not to say it's a well-rounded workout but it IS the most effective at staving off those pounds.
The poster said he was already doing some resistance training so obviously he was aware of the benefits of doing so and, if anything, he might simply want to increase his mix of resistance exercises. But, again, it seems his frustration was in the "extra pounds" more than anything... and the answer is biking or running.:)
Anywy, to sum it up--I've never said weight training isn't a good thing. It absolutely is. I just addressed the fact that it isn't the most effective exercise if the primary concern is burning fat.
Muscle mass burns calories all day long while aerobics only burns while you perform that particular exercise
Yes, but not much more. Can you find any information that suggests that the increased MBR due to weight training exceeds 8-14% over that of someone that doesn't? Because I've looked and haven't been able to find anything.
If not then, yes, you'll burn a few more calories than me while watching the TV. But I'll burn that, and more, when I go for my two hour bike ride.
There's a reward in higher metabolism from weight-lifting. I can find NO credible information that supports the position that it increases metabolism enough to compensate for the fact that weight-training burns fewer calories than biking.
I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong if anyone can cite evidence that proves it. But an 8% to 14% increase in MBR is not enough to make weight lifting a better calorie burner than biking.
If you can coax your body into maintaining those larger muscles by regularly lifting weights then you will burn several times the number of calories of a skinny person who bikes and swims a lot when you are just sitting at your desk during the workday.
I call B.S. Can you provide any concrete data that supports that? Because the only thing I've been able to find is that a person that engages in strenuous weight lifting might, over time, be able to burn 8-14% more per day doing nothing. But several times (200-300%) more??? Absolute nonsense unless you have proof.
Weight loss and body shaping is not, and will never be, just a simple math equation as above.
Actually, weight loss IS a simple math equation. If calories consumed is less than calories burned, you lose weight. Period. That doesn't mean it's the most healthy approach or will result in the most attractive body. But weight loss and weight gain is nothing more than looking at calories consumed and burned.
But how much energy you burn doesn't matter. The only thing which matters are how much you burn vs how much you eat.
1480-223 = 1257. If we had the same body and I'd go with weight lifting for a 500 deficiency and you wen't with cardio and ate 1257 kcals more than me per day my body would still look better in the end.
No-one disputes that. You can lose weight by simply not eating. But given that we're comparing apples to apples and assuming that the person is going to eat and wants to do some exercise, assuming the same food consumption, you'll burn fat faster on a bike than lifting weights.
Every site is going to be different, as is every body. However, I can't find any site that suggest weight training consumes more calories than running or biking--even considering any benefit the person in question might receive from a modestly increased metabolic rate.
My argument wasn't that weight training doesn't burn calories. Of course it does. But if the goal is weight loss then it's not the best choice for the stated goals. It seems your post confirms that.
he estimates that the increased lean body mass associated with exercise can increase total daily energy expenditure by between 8% (143 cals per day) for a moderately active person to 14% (286 cals per day) for a highly active person.
If this person dos moderate weight training then over time (the increased MBR is not immediate) he might burn an extra 143 calories per day. That pretty much supports my position that if he wants to lose weight, he needs to be on a bike burning 400-740 calories per hour rather than 223 calories per hour of weightlifting. So if he does two hours of weight training to my two hours of biking, he'll burn maybe 223 * 2 + 143 = 589 calories per day in his exercise while I burn close to 1,480 even if I don't get any increased muscle mass from biking (which I do, albeit to a lesser extent than a good weight training program).
If you want to burn calories: Run or bike, or similar cardio exercises. Of course a balanced workout including weight training is obviously the final goal. But if the immediate goal is weight loss, weight training isn't going to accomplish it nearly as fast as running or biking.
A good mix is obviously best. But if he wants to burn calories, I stand by my assertion that traditional exercises such as running, swimming, and cycling are more efficient at burning calories than weight training unless you're doing some ungodly effort on the weight training.
As an example, this link suggest that at 155 pounds and 60 minutes, I'd burn about 744 calories per hour cycling at 14-15.9mph. Meanwhile, general weightlifting comes in at 223 calories and vigorous weightlifting comes in at 446 calories. And it's a lot more reasonable for most people to do an hour on a bike than a constant productive hour of weight training.
If he wants to lose weight, he should do these kinds of activities (biking, running, etc.). If he is looking for muscle mass then obviously weight training is an obvious choice. And if he wants both, well, he's going to have to do both.
Neither will weights, if your goal is to lose pounds. Weight training is good for what it's good for, but it's not the best option for burning calories. And burning calories is what it sounds like this guy needs.
Slashdot Mirror
As they say, anyone that is a Republican when they're 20 doesn't have a heart. Anyone that is a Democrat when they're 30 doesn't have a brain.
There are things we can fix. Third world hunger is one of them. And we can even fix and treat many medical conditions. But it is an absolute absurdity to presume that health care is a question of social justice or fairness. No-one can guarantee health no matter how much money you throw at it. There are health conditions that simply cannot be fixed. It sucks, but socializing our health care system isn't going to change that. People will get sick and people will die. Simply giving "free" health care to everyone might make you feel better, but it's not at all clear that it will make the patient any better off.
Absolutely! I've been working as a consultant for the last 10 years and 100% believe everyone should be. Mostly because then everyone would realize just how much they are REALLY paying in taxes and there would be an immediate demand to bring taxes down to reasonable levels.
Taxes just aren't real when they are withheld from paychecks. Citizens need to write a check each quarter to really understand how much money they're throwing away.
I could've paid nearly half my mortgage in the last three years if I didn't have to pay federal taxes. So could have many people. But so few people realize it because they never see the money to start with.
I'd say that just about anyone who thinks we need to raise taxes probably isn't self-employed and so doesn't really fathom just how much we're already paying.
Yes, a BIG one. The fact that people don't realize it is why we're under the constant threat of nationalized health care.
It's not the cost (and requirement) of medical school that increases the cost of health care. It's the lack of competition--which is actually exacerbated by health insurance since it hides the true cost from consumers.
I agree we need to let the free market work but we won't actually accomplish that by lowering the bar for doctors.
Same here. Every company I deal with--and I deal with BIG ones--seem to jump through hoops to make sure I understand my information is secure.
I've also never had an employer ask me for authorization to pull my credit report. Unless the position involved directly handling insane amounts of money, I would decline any such request.
Errors are a shame but are not indictments of the success of the medicines used by proper doctors. Ironically, the fact that your mom's neighbor almost died actually prove the friggin' medicine worked exactly as it was supposed to. That it was over-used does not make the medicine any less valid when administered properly.
I'd go out on the edge and say MOST herbal/traditional treatments don't work. That isn't to detract from those that do, but the "industry" is flooded with so many scams and quackery that finding a legitimate solution becomes damn near impossible.
Colloidal silver? Hahahahahaha. Quackwatch
I'm not going to respond to this troll-bait, other than to say:
See my response to the other person that responded to the same message you did. I'll be happy to discuss the issue but I do not give much credence to trolling. If you want to respond to the other ongoing exchange in a productive manner, feel free. Otherwise, please refrain from trolling.
National defense is one of the few things that the government does that IS productive and achieves its stated goals. What major country in the world hasn't been significantly destroyed by foreign forces in the last 200 years? I haven't checked but there aren't many other than the U.S.
Whether Iraq or Afghanistan are worthwhile endeavors is open to debate. But the effectiveness of our military is not.
That's a little naive. Heck, even WWII was arguably not "defense" because we didn't prevent the onslaught of Japan and Germany wasn't going to invade the U.S. homeland any time soon. But that is precisely why our defense has been so effective: We don't have a history of waiting to be up against the wall with an overwhelming enemy invasion. We take care of business pretty promptly. Which is also interesting since Bush has caught a lot of grief for "preemptive" attacks when there is ample precedent for that in U.S. history and is, in fact, a large reason why we haven't been nearly as damaged by wars as most other major countries in the world the last couple of centuries.
Really makes you wonder what the tax money is being spent on. It's not like citizens are being stingy paying taxes. We pay a LOT of taxes. Yet the state still can't manage the money nor can it make logical business decisions any better than companies that only look far enough into the future to address their next quarterly earnings.
And people wonder why conservatives like me don't want the government "fixing" our problems for us and why we'd rather just pay lower taxes for fewer "services." The only service the government really offers is the national defense and money mismanagement. Granted, they're very good at both.
I'll be damned... just like MY first professional programming job back in 1990! It was grunt work making reports that would actually print the right fields at the right place on literally thousands of forms. BEFORE something like Crystal Reports existed. We literally had to do FOR-NEXT loops to print blank lines, print a field, test it, see if it lined up, and then remove or add more iterations to the loop to compensate. Which was a pain if one field lined up but another didn't--then we had to print them on different logical lines and split the FOR-NEXT loops, etc. I believe I was earning $14k/year at the time, just marginally better than working at McDonald's. But at least I was IN THE DOOR in my industry of interest.
In other words, Earth calling young people new to the workforce: You're going to have to "do your time" with the sh*t jobs just like those of us that are making $100k+ today had to a couple decades ago. Do your time and in 10-20 years, you'll be making decent money and having fun, too.
But for now, get to work on those damn forms!
Really? I haven't seen any evidence of that. If anything the older people are the people that actually know how things work and have the motivation to get things done.
I'll take a 50 or 60-year old with 20-30 years of experience to a recent college grad any day of the week. Without thinking twice.
Short-term it would be worse. Long-term it would almost definitely be better.
No-one argues that liberal economic policy is like a drug and people have become dependent on it. It's about the only thing that keeps liberals in power. And it WILL eventually collapse under its own weight. The only question is whether we decide to take a proactive solution and start dismantling it slowly or wait until the cow manure hits the fan and it all collapses at once.
The national defense is one of the few things the federal government does today that actually has a constitutional basis. I don't think anyone suggests getting rid of our military. It's one of the VERY few things our government has done that actually WORKS (when liberals aren't busy undermining it and/or its mission, anyway).
Again, you are talking about shutting down legitimate aspects of government that no-one except for anarchists advocates shutting down.
What conservatives argue against are social programs such as social security, Medicare, etc. Those weren't a part of the federal government envisioned by the founding fathers even though poverty was arguably *worse* back then than it is now. And if you got rid of the nonsensical and massively expensive social spending, the state and federal governments could still do their constitutionally-mandated jobs AND we could pay a lot less in taxes which would lead to a more productive economy in which fewer people would need the liberal social programs they depend on today.
The end result is the same. If they invade and conquer by taking advantage of our stupidity, they're still invading and conquering.
Actually, you just affirmed that it IS safer. The numbers state that the probability of your international mail being inspected is lower than what you carry through TSA. Thus it is safer. No, not immune, but safer.
I agree.
And I never said otherwise.
I was simply replying to the original question posted in the summary: "Do any Slashdotters have a regular workout routine that can be performed in the privacy of the home to stave off those pounds?" If the concern is "staving off those pads," cardio like biking and running is the most effective. That is not to say it's a well-rounded workout but it IS the most effective at staving off those pounds.
The poster said he was already doing some resistance training so obviously he was aware of the benefits of doing so and, if anything, he might simply want to increase his mix of resistance exercises. But, again, it seems his frustration was in the "extra pounds" more than anything... and the answer is biking or running. :)
Anywy, to sum it up--I've never said weight training isn't a good thing. It absolutely is. I just addressed the fact that it isn't the most effective exercise if the primary concern is burning fat.
Yes, but not much more. Can you find any information that suggests that the increased MBR due to weight training exceeds 8-14% over that of someone that doesn't? Because I've looked and haven't been able to find anything.
If not then, yes, you'll burn a few more calories than me while watching the TV. But I'll burn that, and more, when I go for my two hour bike ride.
There's a reward in higher metabolism from weight-lifting. I can find NO credible information that supports the position that it increases metabolism enough to compensate for the fact that weight-training burns fewer calories than biking.
I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong if anyone can cite evidence that proves it. But an 8% to 14% increase in MBR is not enough to make weight lifting a better calorie burner than biking.
I call B.S. Can you provide any concrete data that supports that? Because the only thing I've been able to find is that a person that engages in strenuous weight lifting might, over time, be able to burn 8-14% more per day doing nothing. But several times (200-300%) more??? Absolute nonsense unless you have proof.
Actually, weight loss IS a simple math equation. If calories consumed is less than calories burned, you lose weight. Period. That doesn't mean it's the most healthy approach or will result in the most attractive body. But weight loss and weight gain is nothing more than looking at calories consumed and burned.
No-one disputes that. You can lose weight by simply not eating. But given that we're comparing apples to apples and assuming that the person is going to eat and wants to do some exercise, assuming the same food consumption, you'll burn fat faster on a bike than lifting weights.
Every site is going to be different, as is every body. However, I can't find any site that suggest weight training consumes more calories than running or biking--even considering any benefit the person in question might receive from a modestly increased metabolic rate.
My argument wasn't that weight training doesn't burn calories. Of course it does. But if the goal is weight loss then it's not the best choice for the stated goals. It seems your post confirms that.
Following-up, I found this link which says:
If this person dos moderate weight training then over time (the increased MBR is not immediate) he might burn an extra 143 calories per day. That pretty much supports my position that if he wants to lose weight, he needs to be on a bike burning 400-740 calories per hour rather than 223 calories per hour of weightlifting. So if he does two hours of weight training to my two hours of biking, he'll burn maybe 223 * 2 + 143 = 589 calories per day in his exercise while I burn close to 1,480 even if I don't get any increased muscle mass from biking (which I do, albeit to a lesser extent than a good weight training program).
If you want to burn calories: Run or bike, or similar cardio exercises. Of course a balanced workout including weight training is obviously the final goal. But if the immediate goal is weight loss, weight training isn't going to accomplish it nearly as fast as running or biking.
A good mix is obviously best. But if he wants to burn calories, I stand by my assertion that traditional exercises such as running, swimming, and cycling are more efficient at burning calories than weight training unless you're doing some ungodly effort on the weight training.
As an example, this link suggest that at 155 pounds and 60 minutes, I'd burn about 744 calories per hour cycling at 14-15.9mph. Meanwhile, general weightlifting comes in at 223 calories and vigorous weightlifting comes in at 446 calories. And it's a lot more reasonable for most people to do an hour on a bike than a constant productive hour of weight training.
If he wants to lose weight, he should do these kinds of activities (biking, running, etc.). If he is looking for muscle mass then obviously weight training is an obvious choice. And if he wants both, well, he's going to have to do both.
Neither will weights, if your goal is to lose pounds. Weight training is good for what it's good for, but it's not the best option for burning calories. And burning calories is what it sounds like this guy needs.