What a silly idea. Why should I have to demonstrate a "need" to buy something?
Great ideas are born and inventions are made from tinkering around with things. To ban things that will encourage people to experiment and come up with cool, new things is just stifling both innovation and creativity.
As a kid, I learned a ton through chemistry kits and building tesla coils. Hell, if I genuinely wanted, I can build a laser in my garage. What do you say to that? Even today, my latest startup is an engineering company whose components I experiment on in my garage. And you know what? Sometimes, I don't even know I need something until I look around my tool kit and find something that I'd like to use. That's what creativity and engineering is all about.
So, fuck you. I shouldn't have to demonstrate jack squat to buy something. Enough with eroding our freedoms already. If you don't like a few illegitimate uses of a tool then make laws to punish that use. Do not make it harder for everyone else to buy and use a product.
Only a massive modern globally fueled artificial availability of things that can't grow in one place allowed people to be vegetarians and mostly skinny and malnourished vegetarians at that.
This is silly. There are entire societies and cultures that are built around being vegetarian (look around parts of the Indian subcontinent). I'm pretty sure a lot of people there have been vegetarian long before the advent of overnight shipping of fruits and vegetables.
Plus, your derogatory second statement is also pretty broad, sweeping, and soundly untrue. A good many gym rats (myself included) are vegetarian, and you'd be surprised at how many physically fit people are vegetarian. Eggs and whey can do wonders to a vegetarian diet. I'm pretty sure my "vegetarian" biceps and bench will make you look skinny (or fat - take your pick).
The thing is, once you start getting in shape, it becomes easier. I've head that it takes ~66 days for a habit to kick in, and once you've established a pattern of healthy eating habits, it is really easy to keep going.
Now, that's not to say I don't cheat once in a while. Of course I do. Otherwise, it is psychologically unsustainable. But you are not going to gain a few lbs by cheating once a month (as long as you limit your cheating to a reasonable cheat meal, not a cheat day where you binge).
As you no doubt know, fat loss is pretty much entirely diet. Every time I see the same fat people running on the treadmill at my local gym year after year, I am tempted to tell them that they would be a lot better served if they only ate right, and they could possibly forgo the gym altogether.
Plus, I will not lie - it feels great to be in shape. Feels great when you get checked out by women, helps your confidence, and is overall an empowering feeling to be fit. I mean, it is completely flattering when you're in nothing but jeans and a polo shirt with your girl when someone blatantly checks you out and smiles at you.
For a fat person, if they ate significantly less than their maintenance, there is no way to defy the law of thermodynamics. Their weight loss may not happen as fast, or may not happen at a fixed rate, but it will certainly happen.
Most variations due to variables that you mention are at best minor -- in the grand scheme of things, at a macro level, they will both lose weight. One may lose.8 lbs and the other.9, but they will both lose weight if they were to eat below maintenance.
I have been tracking how much I eat, how much I work out, my carb, protein, fat, and sodium intake every day for the past 4 years. And I have noticed only ONE thing that's in common: the more I eat, the more I gain, the less I eat, the more I lose. As long as I'm in a caloric deficit, everything else is secondary.
So, just feed a fat person less and watch them get skinny. Now, they will be skinny-fat (you know, skinny with no muscle tone) unless they workout and get enough protein, but then we get into fat loss, not weight loss.
The complexities of the human body cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics. I say that if you did not eat anything for the next week, you'll lose weight. Would you care to disagree?
It is physically impossible for someone to gain more weight (fat and muscle) than what they're consuming. You may temporarily retain some water if you consume a lot of calories or carbs, but that's about it.
The amount you retain is strictly a function of your activity and metabolism, and the more active you are and less you eat, the less you retain. The less active you are and more you eat, the more you retain.
Where do you think people's fat comes from? It's from the food they eat. Do you really think we can get fatter through osmosis? People are fat because they consume more calories than they should, one way or another.
You're missing the point -- sure, those things will play a role, but not to the tune of you gaining 40 lbs.
They will show minor variation in your weight and how fast you lose your fat, but at a macro level, as long as you're burning more than you're eating, you cannot help but lose weight. For the vast majority of people, the effects of those things are at best secondary if only they ate right and worked out 5 days a week.
Those other factors are important to those of us who are trying to get into ridiculously low bf % (I've been trying to drop below 10% body fat, and it is incredibly hard without dying of fatigue -- I recently discovered something called Intermittent Fasting, where you pretty much fast most of the day, and that's greatly helped me).
I am glad to hear that sleep apnea helped you with losing weight, but here is a question: is sleep apnea the cause of you gaining weight or did you cause sleep apnea by being overweight?
While muscles do burn more calories, it has been shown that there is not a significant difference in how many (I can't remember the study now, but it was a fairly recent one at that).
Here is what I would recommend a fat person to do:
1. Calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate and your level of activity, and figure out your Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
2. Weigh and track every single thing you eat, and hit that number.
3. Do this for 3-5 weeks, and see if you've gained or lost weight.
4. If you've gained weight, eat even less. If you've lost weight, eat less if you want to lose more or eat the same if you're happy with your rate of loss.
5. Aim to eat ~3500 calories less/week and I will *guarantee* you that you will lose 1 lb/week -- you may retain water weight depending on how much carbs/sodium you consume etc but other than that, you will definitely see the scale trend downwards.
6. If you would actually like to look good (and not lose both fat and muscle), calculate your body fat percentage and eat.8 x Lean Body Mass grams of protein and lift weights.
7. Repeat.
If you do not see a change in your body composition in a matter of weeks, I will eat my hat.
You think I don't get hungry when I cut? Of course I get hungry. I just learn to live with it. You think I don't want to magically eat candy and have an appetite when I'm in shape? Of course I want to. Hell, right now, I'm eating ~1500 calories a day, and work out 5 days a week. With my job where I travel, I am practically ravenous all the time. I've just learned to drink water and live with the hunger.
It's hard to get in shape and stay in shape, especially when there are delicious foods that are utterly unhealthy available everywhere. I certainly don't want to measure every single thing I eat and constantly eat boring foods.
But if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it.
Pretty much ~3500 kcals = 1 lb of weight. So, if you calculate your TDEE or total daily energy expenditure (which is your Basal Metabolic Rate * your activity level) and eat ~3500 calories less or burn it off, you'll lose a pound of fat. It's just simple math.
The reason people eating the same diet will not gain the same weight is because of a few other reasons:
1. People gain the weight in different parts of their bodies and store them and use them differently. But two people eating 3500 calories over their TDEE will definitely gain a pound each. It also depends on your prior eating habits, your insulin resistance, leptin resistance, the concentration and distribution of your alpha-2 and beta-2 adrenergic receptors, whether or not you were ever fat before (your fat cells pretty much never die - they just "slim" down, in case they are ever needed again) etc.
2. Different activity levels (sedentary vs. lightly active vs. extremely active etc). When I'm on a cutting regimen, I find myself to be a lot more lethargic -- small things, such as twirling pens or tapping my foot to a beat do not happen, and I just sit. On the other hand, normally, I am extremely active, and on my feet even when I'm technically sedentary. All those things burn calories.
3. Water retention (which depends on how much sodium and carbs you consume, creatine, your body composition) etc.
It's just hard for me be to believe that the kind of fat we're seeing in the 21st century is caused just by the same kind of overeating that's been going on for a century.
It's not just overeating that's going on -- it's densely packed calories. I mean, everyone loves sugar - it's more addictive than crack, for crying out loud.
For instance, the Beef Taco Salad at Taco Bell has 780 calories. On a daily basis, I try to consume ~1500 calories when I'm cutting. That's almost half my daily intake, in a salad at that. Add a large coke and 310 calories. Maybe I'll have an Apple empanada for dessert, another 310 calories. So, just that one meal will have me at 1400 calories for the day.
Technically, even if I only ate the Taco Bell salad, I cannot have more than two of those a day -- even eating two of those a day will put me over my limit.
You do this math with most restaurants and you'd be amazed at how quickly the numbers add up. People seem to think that "drinking juice" is healthy, but you know what, they are drinking the calories. It is much healthier for them to eat the actual fruit and get the nutrients with limited calories than drink juices. Ditto for bread and so many microwaveable meals that are so easily available.
You add snacks such as candy, chips, soda etc and you'd be amazed at how many calories people consume. These are often calories with zero nutrients -- purely carb and sugar, with no useful nutrients, protein, or dietary fat.
So, no, it doesn't surprise me that people are fat. It surprises me that more people aren't that fat.
People don't just get fat because a random chemical made them gain weight.
You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics -- people are fat because they eat more and burn less.
Look at people in concentration camps. They were experimented with all kinds of chemicals on them and yet, they look emaciated. The reason? They did not have enough food (the only exception is perhaps the Kwashiorkor syndrome which is caused by protein and nutritional deficiency and water retention, but even they look emaciated -- just with fat bellies and such caused by oedema).
As a society, we've made it incredibly easy for people to consume a lot of calories with very little effort. That's why people are fat. People eat more when they should be eating less, people drive when they should be walking and running, and people do not part-take in any physical activities.
When was the last time you know when people you know played a game regularly? Some friends of mine and I play tennis regularly at a neighborhood park, and we are amazed at just how empty the tennis, basketball, soccer, baseball, and all the other courts are. Even on weekends with great weather.
When was the last time you could get a 4 oz or 8 oz drink? When was the last time you could ask for half or a quarter of the portion size? Last year, when my wife and I came back from traveling in Asia and Europe, we landed in NYC and went to grab some good old American food. I was amazed when the size of the soup and salad that were brought to me was at least 4x the size of a large portion in Asia and Europe.
People are fat because they've become lazy slobs who cannot do portion control and who do not give a shit about getting in shape. Let's stop looking for reasons and excuses and call it for what it is -- gluttony and sloth.
Don't get me wrong, I hit the gym 5 days a week, do rock climbing, surfing, and assorted outdoor activities.
However, there is truth to the saying that six pack abs are made in the kitchen. Every time I've had a six pack, it's been entirely because my diet has been in check. And when I eat fairly liberally, it doesn't matter how much I work out -- it is always much, much harder.
At the end of the day, it comes down to simple math. You just need to burn more than you eat and bring your body fat percentage to pretty low levels (>10%) for most people to see abs (although, if you are lucky and genetically predisposed, you can see abs at ~12-15% -- but most of us aren't). But sometimes, it's just a lot easier to not eat that bag of chips or only eat a salad for lunch and dinner than, say, run it off.
For instance, a bag of Lays kettle chips is ~200 calories and a regular size chocolate chip cookie is ~180 calories. A bowl of Cap'n Crunch with skim milk? 300 calories. Add some sugar to that, and just having these will put you over 600 calories. That's ONE hour of running at 6mph.
Instead, you can have some egg whites and oatmeal for lunch, two salads, and perhaps some baked lean meat or seafood for lunch and save yourself a whole lot of calories.
I save most of my calories for two things: protein and fat. Since my goal is to lose fat and not just weight, I make sure to preserve my muscle mass when I cut. How do I do this? By lifting more weights and eating more protein. And fat? Well, dietary fat is actually required, and I've found out that I need to take enough fat for sufficient T levels.
When it comes right down to it, carbs are almost not required, and I only save my carbs for my pre-workout and morning meals: the two times of the day when I actually need some energy.
Being active and just eating fairly healthy works for us because we are already in good shape, and have lifestyles where we burn at least as much as we consume. But the problem is, most people already have pretty shitty diets, and on top, they are absolutely inactive. So, for those people, diet is without argument the first step.
Your body cannot "get" fat from nowhere -- it cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. As long as you are burning more than you are eating (i.e. eating below your maintenance calories), you WILL get in shape. You may not be muscular or be toned, but you will certainly lose weight. Unfortunately, if you do not lift weights and eat protein, you will lose both fat and protein -- but doing those two will help you preserve at least some muscle mass when you're cutting down.
You should read the Myth of Japan's Failure --- a great piece on perception vs. reality of Japan's economy. Hopefully, this will clear your misconceptions and not have you spewing forth silly rubbish.
Slashdot, where geeks who do not know or understand economics talk about it, and sound like idiots doing so.
I wish I had mod points. Most libertarians today would not want to live in a utopia of their own creation. The whole premise of libertarianism as it stands today is not only flawed, but also unrealistic and harmful to society.
Dominating a social situation is not just about talking, it's about other social cues (eye contact, affable attitude, sense of humor, and generally being likable) and even content (i.e. knowing what to say and what not to say, being able to speak intelligently or even bullshit intelligently, and even knowing enough to sometimes just shut up).
I just think that it's a function of emotional and social intelligence on the part of the person doing the socialization -- a battle of wits, if you will, between them and the recipients.
All kidding aside, I'm terribly sorry to hear that, no one should have to go through that in life. While I consider myself pretty pedestrian looking, I've never had any problems getting women, so I must admit that my outlook is jaded with my own personal experience - I'm not even sure how it would work if I was in your shoes.
But I ask you this in complete sincerity: have you considered plastic surgery? If your physical appearance is that appalling, I'm sure a combination of a healthy lifestyle (which, it sounds like you had when you were younger) and a little bit of surgery can have you looking like a champ.
I'm not sure how old you are, so that may not be an option worth pursuing at this stage (then again, if you *are* older, you probably have enough financial resources to get something like that done). But perhaps it's something worth considering?
"There lives are certainly likely to be more interesting from someone who doesn't game's perspective and their odds of landing a partner outside of gaming increases thusly."
Just because the game play is interesting does not necessarily mean that it will make *you* interesting, or more importantly, interest others.
There are some activities that will make you interesting to others and there are some others that won't. Given that the topic at hand is that of guys' ability to pick up women, usually, video games do not fall under the category of activities that women find interesting (and I should know, I married a gamer chick, and even she liked me for my non-gamer attributes - the fact that I traveled, worked out, rode motorcycles, and had a sense of humor she found funny).
If you've traveled, then you have travel stories and can even take her with you when you're hiking in the mountains or chilling by a beach. She knows her life will be interesting with you. If you play sports or work out, you are physically attractive, and have good stamina. If you are good at cards, poker nights are a hoot. If you ride motorcycles or play in a band, it adds to your "bad boy" vibe that women find attractive. Contrast this with playing in a make believe world buying and chasing after virtual elements when you could be out doing things in the real world. You can call it what you want, but being addicted to gaming is certainly a form of escapism, much like being addicted to the television.
Even amongst gamer chicks, I can bet you that, "Hey, wanna go back to my place and play WoW?" is probably a terrible pickup line.
Only time will tell if video gaming becomes a norm such that those who do not game are deemed less interesting.
Far from it. If you'd read my post, I'd stated that I still play video games. In a past life (read: high-school and college years) I certainly played more than my fair share, starting from the days of Wolf3d and Duke Nukem to Quake and Half Life up until probably Halo when my gaming peaked. Soon thereafter, other priorities took over, but I certainly enjoy playing them. However, it's not my focus or my "one hobby" in life. So, it's not that I don't appreciate them - it's just that I question their place in the list of interesting things that I'd rather be doing, and the maturity of those that are obsessed with them.
There's certainly some truth to that. Then again, unfortunately, so do men. People in general stop taking care of themselves once they are in "committed" long term relationships. So, the woman gets fat and the man isn't interested, the man gets fat and the woman isn't interested, and everyone stays in an unhappy relationship for the kids (or because they're too fat to get with other people). Rarely, only one partner gets unhealthy, or one realizes that they're in an unhappy relationship, pull themselves together and sleep with the personal trainer and the lawyer. Even more rarely, both do, and live happily ever after. But mostly, they just get fat and unhappy.
I tried that strategy, but I guess I was just too ugly.
Being in good shape and and being funny count for a lot more than anything else. One of my best friends (who is smoking hot) is married to a guy who looks like a troll, but is one helluva salsa dancer and a math professor, to boot.
So, work on your other skills. Be more social, hit the gym, find an activity (say, rock climbing, cross-fit, martial arts, dancing, or playing an instrument), and just hang out. You'd be surprised how much of a difference that makes.
Or alternatively, females will become more accomodating to these tendencies, and being a smooth talker won't matter so much anymore.
HAHAHA! You must be joking.
Human beings are social creatures, and anyone who can manipulate a social situation (which is what a smooth talker really is) will always, always clearly have the upper hand.
Women are typically attracted to bad boys because bad boys have something going for them. If you're cocky, confident, indifferent, and masculine, women chase after you, and somehow want to bring out the "nice guy" in you. What more, you're being a positively alpha male, which certainly seems to attract a woman.
And let's be honest here: the vast majority of "nice guys" often use that description in place of meek/geeky/boring, and often tend to be sly bastards. And the vast majority of "bad boys" use that as a mask for deeper insecurities, and are often nice.
In my personal experience, even my own wife admitted to me that if I'd been a "nice guy" at first, she'd not have had a second look at me. The fact that I was indifferent and cocky was what got her interested (that and the fact that I rode motorcycles and played in a band). She was pleasantly surprised when I was genuinely nice as we got serious, but would rather project me as a "bad boy" to her friends.
Slashdot Mirror
What a silly idea. Why should I have to demonstrate a "need" to buy something?
Great ideas are born and inventions are made from tinkering around with things. To ban things that will encourage people to experiment and come up with cool, new things is just stifling both innovation and creativity.
As a kid, I learned a ton through chemistry kits and building tesla coils. Hell, if I genuinely wanted, I can build a laser in my garage. What do you say to that? Even today, my latest startup is an engineering company whose components I experiment on in my garage. And you know what? Sometimes, I don't even know I need something until I look around my tool kit and find something that I'd like to use. That's what creativity and engineering is all about.
So, fuck you. I shouldn't have to demonstrate jack squat to buy something. Enough with eroding our freedoms already. If you don't like a few illegitimate uses of a tool then make laws to punish that use. Do not make it harder for everyone else to buy and use a product.
This is silly. There are entire societies and cultures that are built around being vegetarian (look around parts of the Indian subcontinent). I'm pretty sure a lot of people there have been vegetarian long before the advent of overnight shipping of fruits and vegetables.
Plus, your derogatory second statement is also pretty broad, sweeping, and soundly untrue. A good many gym rats (myself included) are vegetarian, and you'd be surprised at how many physically fit people are vegetarian. Eggs and whey can do wonders to a vegetarian diet. I'm pretty sure my "vegetarian" biceps and bench will make you look skinny (or fat - take your pick).
Not us vegetarians. :-)
That is just conditioning, yes?
The thing is, once you start getting in shape, it becomes easier. I've head that it takes ~66 days for a habit to kick in, and once you've established a pattern of healthy eating habits, it is really easy to keep going.
Now, that's not to say I don't cheat once in a while. Of course I do. Otherwise, it is psychologically unsustainable. But you are not going to gain a few lbs by cheating once a month (as long as you limit your cheating to a reasonable cheat meal, not a cheat day where you binge).
As you no doubt know, fat loss is pretty much entirely diet. Every time I see the same fat people running on the treadmill at my local gym year after year, I am tempted to tell them that they would be a lot better served if they only ate right, and they could possibly forgo the gym altogether.
Plus, I will not lie - it feels great to be in shape. Feels great when you get checked out by women, helps your confidence, and is overall an empowering feeling to be fit. I mean, it is completely flattering when you're in nothing but jeans and a polo shirt with your girl when someone blatantly checks you out and smiles at you.
For a fat person, if they ate significantly less than their maintenance, there is no way to defy the law of thermodynamics. Their weight loss may not happen as fast, or may not happen at a fixed rate, but it will certainly happen.
Most variations due to variables that you mention are at best minor -- in the grand scheme of things, at a macro level, they will both lose weight. One may lose .8 lbs and the other .9, but they will both lose weight if they were to eat below maintenance.
I have been tracking how much I eat, how much I work out, my carb, protein, fat, and sodium intake every day for the past 4 years. And I have noticed only ONE thing that's in common: the more I eat, the more I gain, the less I eat, the more I lose. As long as I'm in a caloric deficit, everything else is secondary.
So, just feed a fat person less and watch them get skinny. Now, they will be skinny-fat (you know, skinny with no muscle tone) unless they workout and get enough protein, but then we get into fat loss, not weight loss.
The complexities of the human body cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics. I say that if you did not eat anything for the next week, you'll lose weight. Would you care to disagree?
It is physically impossible for someone to gain more weight (fat and muscle) than what they're consuming. You may temporarily retain some water if you consume a lot of calories or carbs, but that's about it.
The amount you retain is strictly a function of your activity and metabolism, and the more active you are and less you eat, the less you retain. The less active you are and more you eat, the more you retain.
Where do you think people's fat comes from? It's from the food they eat. Do you really think we can get fatter through osmosis? People are fat because they consume more calories than they should, one way or another.
You're missing the point -- sure, those things will play a role, but not to the tune of you gaining 40 lbs.
They will show minor variation in your weight and how fast you lose your fat, but at a macro level, as long as you're burning more than you're eating, you cannot help but lose weight. For the vast majority of people, the effects of those things are at best secondary if only they ate right and worked out 5 days a week.
Those other factors are important to those of us who are trying to get into ridiculously low bf % (I've been trying to drop below 10% body fat, and it is incredibly hard without dying of fatigue -- I recently discovered something called Intermittent Fasting, where you pretty much fast most of the day, and that's greatly helped me).
I am glad to hear that sleep apnea helped you with losing weight, but here is a question: is sleep apnea the cause of you gaining weight or did you cause sleep apnea by being overweight?
While muscles do burn more calories, it has been shown that there is not a significant difference in how many (I can't remember the study now, but it was a fairly recent one at that).
Here is what I would recommend a fat person to do:
1. Calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate and your level of activity, and figure out your Total Daily Energy Expenditure.
2. Weigh and track every single thing you eat, and hit that number.
3. Do this for 3-5 weeks, and see if you've gained or lost weight.
4. If you've gained weight, eat even less. If you've lost weight, eat less if you want to lose more or eat the same if you're happy with your rate of loss.
5. Aim to eat ~3500 calories less/week and I will *guarantee* you that you will lose 1 lb/week -- you may retain water weight depending on how much carbs/sodium you consume etc but other than that, you will definitely see the scale trend downwards.
6. If you would actually like to look good (and not lose both fat and muscle), calculate your body fat percentage and eat .8 x Lean Body Mass grams of protein and lift weights.
7. Repeat.
If you do not see a change in your body composition in a matter of weeks, I will eat my hat.
You think I don't get hungry when I cut? Of course I get hungry. I just learn to live with it. You think I don't want to magically eat candy and have an appetite when I'm in shape? Of course I want to. Hell, right now, I'm eating ~1500 calories a day, and work out 5 days a week. With my job where I travel, I am practically ravenous all the time. I've just learned to drink water and live with the hunger.
It's hard to get in shape and stay in shape, especially when there are delicious foods that are utterly unhealthy available everywhere. I certainly don't want to measure every single thing I eat and constantly eat boring foods.
But if it was easy, then everyone would be doing it.
See my response to the previous poster.
Pretty much ~3500 kcals = 1 lb of weight. So, if you calculate your TDEE or total daily energy expenditure (which is your Basal Metabolic Rate * your activity level) and eat ~3500 calories less or burn it off, you'll lose a pound of fat. It's just simple math.
The reason people eating the same diet will not gain the same weight is because of a few other reasons:
1. People gain the weight in different parts of their bodies and store them and use them differently. But two people eating 3500 calories over their TDEE will definitely gain a pound each. It also depends on your prior eating habits, your insulin resistance, leptin resistance, the concentration and distribution of your alpha-2 and beta-2 adrenergic receptors, whether or not you were ever fat before (your fat cells pretty much never die - they just "slim" down, in case they are ever needed again) etc.
2. Different activity levels (sedentary vs. lightly active vs. extremely active etc). When I'm on a cutting regimen, I find myself to be a lot more lethargic -- small things, such as twirling pens or tapping my foot to a beat do not happen, and I just sit. On the other hand, normally, I am extremely active, and on my feet even when I'm technically sedentary. All those things burn calories.
3. Water retention (which depends on how much sodium and carbs you consume, creatine, your body composition) etc.
It's not just overeating that's going on -- it's densely packed calories. I mean, everyone loves sugar - it's more addictive than crack, for crying out loud.
For instance, the Beef Taco Salad at Taco Bell has 780 calories. On a daily basis, I try to consume ~1500 calories when I'm cutting. That's almost half my daily intake, in a salad at that. Add a large coke and 310 calories. Maybe I'll have an Apple empanada for dessert, another 310 calories. So, just that one meal will have me at 1400 calories for the day.
Technically, even if I only ate the Taco Bell salad, I cannot have more than two of those a day -- even eating two of those a day will put me over my limit.
You do this math with most restaurants and you'd be amazed at how quickly the numbers add up. People seem to think that "drinking juice" is healthy, but you know what, they are drinking the calories. It is much healthier for them to eat the actual fruit and get the nutrients with limited calories than drink juices. Ditto for bread and so many microwaveable meals that are so easily available.
You add snacks such as candy, chips, soda etc and you'd be amazed at how many calories people consume. These are often calories with zero nutrients -- purely carb and sugar, with no useful nutrients, protein, or dietary fat.
So, no, it doesn't surprise me that people are fat. It surprises me that more people aren't that fat.
People don't just get fat because a random chemical made them gain weight.
You cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics -- people are fat because they eat more and burn less.
Look at people in concentration camps. They were experimented with all kinds of chemicals on them and yet, they look emaciated. The reason? They did not have enough food (the only exception is perhaps the Kwashiorkor syndrome which is caused by protein and nutritional deficiency and water retention, but even they look emaciated -- just with fat bellies and such caused by oedema).
As a society, we've made it incredibly easy for people to consume a lot of calories with very little effort. That's why people are fat. People eat more when they should be eating less, people drive when they should be walking and running, and people do not part-take in any physical activities.
When was the last time you know when people you know played a game regularly? Some friends of mine and I play tennis regularly at a neighborhood park, and we are amazed at just how empty the tennis, basketball, soccer, baseball, and all the other courts are. Even on weekends with great weather.
When was the last time you could get a 4 oz or 8 oz drink? When was the last time you could ask for half or a quarter of the portion size? Last year, when my wife and I came back from traveling in Asia and Europe, we landed in NYC and went to grab some good old American food. I was amazed when the size of the soup and salad that were brought to me was at least 4x the size of a large portion in Asia and Europe.
People are fat because they've become lazy slobs who cannot do portion control and who do not give a shit about getting in shape. Let's stop looking for reasons and excuses and call it for what it is -- gluttony and sloth.
Actually, diet is much easier than working out.
Don't get me wrong, I hit the gym 5 days a week, do rock climbing, surfing, and assorted outdoor activities.
However, there is truth to the saying that six pack abs are made in the kitchen. Every time I've had a six pack, it's been entirely because my diet has been in check. And when I eat fairly liberally, it doesn't matter how much I work out -- it is always much, much harder.
At the end of the day, it comes down to simple math. You just need to burn more than you eat and bring your body fat percentage to pretty low levels (>10%) for most people to see abs (although, if you are lucky and genetically predisposed, you can see abs at ~12-15% -- but most of us aren't). But sometimes, it's just a lot easier to not eat that bag of chips or only eat a salad for lunch and dinner than, say, run it off.
For instance, a bag of Lays kettle chips is ~200 calories and a regular size chocolate chip cookie is ~180 calories. A bowl of Cap'n Crunch with skim milk? 300 calories. Add some sugar to that, and just having these will put you over 600 calories. That's ONE hour of running at 6mph.
Instead, you can have some egg whites and oatmeal for lunch, two salads, and perhaps some baked lean meat or seafood for lunch and save yourself a whole lot of calories.
I save most of my calories for two things: protein and fat. Since my goal is to lose fat and not just weight, I make sure to preserve my muscle mass when I cut. How do I do this? By lifting more weights and eating more protein. And fat? Well, dietary fat is actually required, and I've found out that I need to take enough fat for sufficient T levels.
When it comes right down to it, carbs are almost not required, and I only save my carbs for my pre-workout and morning meals: the two times of the day when I actually need some energy.
Being active and just eating fairly healthy works for us because we are already in good shape, and have lifestyles where we burn at least as much as we consume. But the problem is, most people already have pretty shitty diets, and on top, they are absolutely inactive. So, for those people, diet is without argument the first step.
Your body cannot "get" fat from nowhere -- it cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. As long as you are burning more than you are eating (i.e. eating below your maintenance calories), you WILL get in shape. You may not be muscular or be toned, but you will certainly lose weight. Unfortunately, if you do not lift weights and eat protein, you will lose both fat and protein -- but doing those two will help you preserve at least some muscle mass when you're cutting down.
Sigh, here we go again.
You should read the Myth of Japan's Failure --- a great piece on perception vs. reality of Japan's economy. Hopefully, this will clear your misconceptions and not have you spewing forth silly rubbish.
Slashdot, where geeks who do not know or understand economics talk about it, and sound like idiots doing so.
I wish I had mod points. Most libertarians today would not want to live in a utopia of their own creation. The whole premise of libertarianism as it stands today is not only flawed, but also unrealistic and harmful to society.
You just won the internet. Well, Slashdot for the day at the very least. :-)
Dominating a social situation is not just about talking, it's about other social cues (eye contact, affable attitude, sense of humor, and generally being likable) and even content (i.e. knowing what to say and what not to say, being able to speak intelligently or even bullshit intelligently, and even knowing enough to sometimes just shut up).
I just think that it's a function of emotional and social intelligence on the part of the person doing the socialization -- a battle of wits, if you will, between them and the recipients.
You must be really ugly, then! ;-)
All kidding aside, I'm terribly sorry to hear that, no one should have to go through that in life. While I consider myself pretty pedestrian looking, I've never had any problems getting women, so I must admit that my outlook is jaded with my own personal experience - I'm not even sure how it would work if I was in your shoes.
But I ask you this in complete sincerity: have you considered plastic surgery? If your physical appearance is that appalling, I'm sure a combination of a healthy lifestyle (which, it sounds like you had when you were younger) and a little bit of surgery can have you looking like a champ.
I'm not sure how old you are, so that may not be an option worth pursuing at this stage (then again, if you *are* older, you probably have enough financial resources to get something like that done). But perhaps it's something worth considering?
Just because the game play is interesting does not necessarily mean that it will make *you* interesting, or more importantly, interest others.
There are some activities that will make you interesting to others and there are some others that won't. Given that the topic at hand is that of guys' ability to pick up women, usually, video games do not fall under the category of activities that women find interesting (and I should know, I married a gamer chick, and even she liked me for my non-gamer attributes - the fact that I traveled, worked out, rode motorcycles, and had a sense of humor she found funny).
If you've traveled, then you have travel stories and can even take her with you when you're hiking in the mountains or chilling by a beach. She knows her life will be interesting with you. If you play sports or work out, you are physically attractive, and have good stamina. If you are good at cards, poker nights are a hoot. If you ride motorcycles or play in a band, it adds to your "bad boy" vibe that women find attractive. Contrast this with playing in a make believe world buying and chasing after virtual elements when you could be out doing things in the real world. You can call it what you want, but being addicted to gaming is certainly a form of escapism, much like being addicted to the television.
Even amongst gamer chicks, I can bet you that, "Hey, wanna go back to my place and play WoW?" is probably a terrible pickup line.
Far from it. If you'd read my post, I'd stated that I still play video games. In a past life (read: high-school and college years) I certainly played more than my fair share, starting from the days of Wolf3d and Duke Nukem to Quake and Half Life up until probably Halo when my gaming peaked. Soon thereafter, other priorities took over, but I certainly enjoy playing them. However, it's not my focus or my "one hobby" in life. So, it's not that I don't appreciate them - it's just that I question their place in the list of interesting things that I'd rather be doing, and the maturity of those that are obsessed with them.
There's certainly some truth to that. Then again, unfortunately, so do men. People in general stop taking care of themselves once they are in "committed" long term relationships. So, the woman gets fat and the man isn't interested, the man gets fat and the woman isn't interested, and everyone stays in an unhappy relationship for the kids (or because they're too fat to get with other people). Rarely, only one partner gets unhealthy, or one realizes that they're in an unhappy relationship, pull themselves together and sleep with the personal trainer and the lawyer. Even more rarely, both do, and live happily ever after. But mostly, they just get fat and unhappy.
What does that even mean?
Being in good shape and and being funny count for a lot more than anything else. One of my best friends (who is smoking hot) is married to a guy who looks like a troll, but is one helluva salsa dancer and a math professor, to boot.
So, work on your other skills. Be more social, hit the gym, find an activity (say, rock climbing, cross-fit, martial arts, dancing, or playing an instrument), and just hang out. You'd be surprised how much of a difference that makes.
I stand corrected, and humbled.
Clearly, I pale in front of someone with such a fabulous haircut that will land them all the women in the world. ;-)
I don't think this is necessary limited to men.
HAHAHA! You must be joking.
Human beings are social creatures, and anyone who can manipulate a social situation (which is what a smooth talker really is) will always, always clearly have the upper hand.
Women are typically attracted to bad boys because bad boys have something going for them. If you're cocky, confident, indifferent, and masculine, women chase after you, and somehow want to bring out the "nice guy" in you. What more, you're being a positively alpha male, which certainly seems to attract a woman.
And let's be honest here: the vast majority of "nice guys" often use that description in place of meek/geeky/boring, and often tend to be sly bastards. And the vast majority of "bad boys" use that as a mask for deeper insecurities, and are often nice.
In my personal experience, even my own wife admitted to me that if I'd been a "nice guy" at first, she'd not have had a second look at me. The fact that I was indifferent and cocky was what got her interested (that and the fact that I rode motorcycles and played in a band). She was pleasantly surprised when I was genuinely nice as we got serious, but would rather project me as a "bad boy" to her friends.