What does this mean? Why couldn't you just eat less than 1000 kcal/day?
With really low calorie diets, it becomes exceedingly hard to get all the nutrients you need in the right amounts, including the essential vitamins, essential minerals and essential amino acids, and pH balance.
Also, your red aerobic muscles like your heart and breathing muscles need a certain amount of sugars to do their daily work, and if there isn't enough, they will start cannibalizing their own stores, which is not good.
Unless you're in hospital where they monitor you near constantly, it's very difficult to do starvation diets safely.
You did not burn an average of 1,500 calories per day through exercise for any significant period of time. That's two hours - every single day - of hard, olympic level exercise.
In my case, more like 3-4 hours of quite-sub-athletic level exercise every day. Yesterday, I burned 3173 kcal, of which 2315 kcal were burnt during actual exercise in 4:24:59, mostly brisk walking. Subtracting 65 kcal per hour which I would have burned sitting still, that still gives a training surplus of 2028 kcal. That was a Sunday with more spare time than usual, though. Looking at my stats for the last full month, I burned an average of 2825 kcal daily. It's about par - the average so far this year is 2824 kcal, which includes sick days and other days beyond my control dragging the stats down a little. Typical days are around 2800-3200 kcal, which gives a surplus of around 1500 kcal.
I'm certainly not an athlete, just trying to stay active.
Just don't run up my insurance premiums with your self-destructive habits, ok?
If he dies young, he probably won't. The health insurance payout per person per year grows exponentially with age, and your premium is high chiefly because of those who live long disease-ridden lives and spend years at nursing facilities.
I think every person who retires should be given a Dodge Demon and a case of Scotch, paid for by the health insurance company. It would be cheaper.
The older you get the harder it gets to get weight off.
I have to disagree with that. The older you get, the more spare time you usually have, which can be put to good use for exercise. And also, the older you get, the less you feel hunger. There are plenty skinny older people. In fact, being underweight is far more of a problem for the elderly. Part of the explanation is likely that a lot of the fatter ones die young and don't become elderly at all, but from what I can tell, people don't get fat when they retire, they get fat well before then, and many of the elderly were far fatter when younger.
Weight loss (which mostly comes from calorie restriction and not exercise, however exercise is great for many other things)
I hear this a lot, and it's false. People look for easy solutions and excuses, and it's a heck of a lot easier to do a diet than change your lifestyle, and this is an excuse for doing just that. But it's not true. Calorific deficit is what causes weight loss. If you do it through diet, chances are you lose both fat and muscle, and the deficit cannot be all that large or you'll get other deficiency problems. And at any rate, you cannot eat less than zero. If you do it through exercise, you'll only lose fat, not muscle, and the deficit can be as high as you push it.
The reason I can state with certainty that you can lose weight (and more importantly, fat) through exercise and not calorie restriction is that I did it. It was simple maths: I burned around 1500 kcal a day if doing nothing, and no safe diet would be under 1000 kcal a day (and even that's pushing it). So that would be a 500 kcal deficit per day. But if I started exercising, burning 3000 kcal a day, without changing my calorie intake, that would be a 1500 kcal deficit per day. The path was clear, and it worked beautifully.
The main problem was all the times people asked what diet I was on, and how they wouldn't believe me when I told them "none", because of the old wives' tale that weight loss starts in the kitchen and is 80% diet. It's a bloody lie that people use as an excuse for not getting off the couch.
Now I am lean and no longer lose weight, but I continue exercising and simply eat more to keep my weight.
I only went from 30 BMI to a 28 BMI, which doesn't sound like much and still puts me as obese
No, 30+ is obese. 25-30 is "merely" overweight. I'd still recommend that you start moving more and get more fit and lean. Glad you're on the right track with food, but that's not the whole equation, as I'm sure you know.
Walking without elevating your heart rate or breaking a sweat is worthless, even if you walked for hours.
I think it would be impossible to walk for hours without raising your heart rate, especially if you're not very fit. Just normal walking speed will put most people at the lower steady state heart rate level with slightly elevated breathing, and that does help.
When I get back, I hit the weights doing 5 sets of 100 reps each, followed by 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups and 100-pull-ups, which altogether is another 30 minutes
... but does not count as cardio exercise. You're training your anaerobic muscles there, doing interval training, and getting more buff, not more fit.
Like many here, I'm above middle age, but fairly fit for my age, with a BMI of 20 and VO2max of 46. And the main reason is... walking. Also some treadmill running and exercise bike, but mainly just walking.
What was your exercise program like ? I understood the # of minutes you need to exercise per week to reap cardiovascular benefits, for instance, was pretty large.
The average American watches TV for five and a half hours a day. If reducing that to half and using the extra time for aerobic exercise, it's more than enough to stay quite fit.
Since last winter, I now exercise 1-2 hours a day, plus 1-2 hours of walking for the sake of walking. This has transformed me from a blob with plenty of physical problems into a lean healthy person. Compared to the time I used to spend watching TV or play video games, it's not much.
But true, each session has to be long enough to reap heart and lung benefits. Cardio training is not like interval training where you can do a short burst and then rest - anything less than 20 minutes sustained activity won't do much good, and more is better. The good thing is that after 20-60 minutes (varying for persons), you break through the wall where you want to stop, and reach a steady state where you can continue for hours. The bad thing is that you have no excuse for rest days, because the red slow-twitch muscles don't need and don't benefit from them.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence. If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
Again, you're looking at the short term process, not the future. As the amount of food goes down because of herbivores, the number of herbivores will go down too, and those left will look for easier sources of food. What's left of the habitat may be much less than what once were, but it is exceedingly rare that any wild species manage to grace anything to extinction. That there are too many deer is just another way of saying there is too much food. An equilibrium will be reached; it's how nature works when we don't interfere.
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away.
That's not given. Deer are relatively short-lived, and as they reduce their food source, their population will dwindle. Once it has reached a sufficiently small size, it is not going to be worth it for the remaining deer to trek there compared to finding larger food sources. The aspen might end up as significantly smaller, but still survive.
It's also only looking at CO2, and ignoring the other pollution. Diesels put out a lot of harmful particulate matter right where people live and breathe.
And the cobalt in Li-Ion batteries isn't exactly healthy either, not to mention the strip-mining in Congo where most of it comes from.
The problem is that the warranties don't kick in before the batteries have deteriorated enough to significantly affect range. For at least some users who require the range, that means they will have to swap out the batteries before then.
Are you kidding? Have you ever tried maintaining your own email server? $500 is dirt cheap compared to maintaining your own.
Yeah, but you still have to maintain this one. So what makes it better than a much cheaper micro-server with a fully configurable SMTP server? You're basically just paying for pointy-clicky and ropes that are shortened so you have less options.
The bad: the features are just... weird. Why does it uses a face-photo-unlock feature instead of just a regular NIP? It's not like the screen is too small to display 12 buttons in a 3x4 grid.
If part of the target audience includes physically active people, that makes sense. It's hard to unlock a phone to make a call with sweaty hands and/or gloves. It's easier to do a face unlock and then tell it to call.
If it wasn't $350, I could find use for it, like when I'm out running and don't want to carry a big phone with me, but still want to be able to make a call if I have to, do a quick map lookup, or pay with NFC. The size is not much bigger than the candybar phones of a few years ago, and those were far more handy - I currently have a "compact" phone, but it's still way bigger than is comfortable.
I fail to see what value a blockchain adds here over, say, signed certificates. Can someone explain the added value to either content creator, copyright holder or consumer that requires blockchain?
A more interesting and change I have notices in language that those young people use is that they have been started to call people for bots as an insult.
People did that on IRC back in the mid 90s. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Mobile phone users before then were mostly men. Unlimited plans doubled the market by making it more attractive to women. And data plans made them more attractive to the younger generation.
While there is a correlation between poverty and homelessness, the two are not the same. Many poor aren't homeless, and some people with decent income are migratory and without a home. And a very few live outside the monetary system, and qualify as poor by statistical measures, despite owning homes and land and living quite well.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're advocating the tragedy of the commons, then?
I prefer to not let "but others do it" dictate my moral choices.
What does this mean? Why couldn't you just eat less than 1000 kcal/day?
With really low calorie diets, it becomes exceedingly hard to get all the nutrients you need in the right amounts, including the essential vitamins, essential minerals and essential amino acids, and pH balance.
Also, your red aerobic muscles like your heart and breathing muscles need a certain amount of sugars to do their daily work, and if there isn't enough, they will start cannibalizing their own stores, which is not good.
Unless you're in hospital where they monitor you near constantly, it's very difficult to do starvation diets safely.
You did not burn an average of 1,500 calories per day through exercise for any significant period of time. That's two hours - every single day - of hard, olympic level exercise.
In my case, more like 3-4 hours of quite-sub-athletic level exercise every day.
Yesterday, I burned 3173 kcal, of which 2315 kcal were burnt during actual exercise in 4:24:59, mostly brisk walking. Subtracting 65 kcal per hour which I would have burned sitting still, that still gives a training surplus of 2028 kcal.
That was a Sunday with more spare time than usual, though. Looking at my stats for the last full month, I burned an average of 2825 kcal daily. It's about par - the average so far this year is 2824 kcal, which includes sick days and other days beyond my control dragging the stats down a little. Typical days are around 2800-3200 kcal, which gives a surplus of around 1500 kcal.
I'm certainly not an athlete, just trying to stay active.
I take it you don't have a family.
Sure I do, and I don't want to become a burden on them. So when I am no longer a net benefit to the family, I want to go back to non-existence.
Just don't run up my insurance premiums with your self-destructive habits, ok?
If he dies young, he probably won't. The health insurance payout per person per year grows exponentially with age, and your premium is high chiefly because of those who live long disease-ridden lives and spend years at nursing facilities.
I think every person who retires should be given a Dodge Demon and a case of Scotch, paid for by the health insurance company. It would be cheaper.
The older you get the harder it gets to get weight off.
I have to disagree with that.
The older you get, the more spare time you usually have, which can be put to good use for exercise. And also, the older you get, the less you feel hunger.
There are plenty skinny older people. In fact, being underweight is far more of a problem for the elderly. Part of the explanation is likely that a lot of the fatter ones die young and don't become elderly at all, but from what I can tell, people don't get fat when they retire, they get fat well before then, and many of the elderly were far fatter when younger.
Weight loss (which mostly comes from calorie restriction and not exercise, however exercise is great for many other things)
I hear this a lot, and it's false. People look for easy solutions and excuses, and it's a heck of a lot easier to do a diet than change your lifestyle, and this is an excuse for doing just that. But it's not true.
Calorific deficit is what causes weight loss.
If you do it through diet, chances are you lose both fat and muscle, and the deficit cannot be all that large or you'll get other deficiency problems. And at any rate, you cannot eat less than zero.
If you do it through exercise, you'll only lose fat, not muscle, and the deficit can be as high as you push it.
The reason I can state with certainty that you can lose weight (and more importantly, fat) through exercise and not calorie restriction is that I did it. It was simple maths: I burned around 1500 kcal a day if doing nothing, and no safe diet would be under 1000 kcal a day (and even that's pushing it). So that would be a 500 kcal deficit per day. But if I started exercising, burning 3000 kcal a day, without changing my calorie intake, that would be a 1500 kcal deficit per day.
The path was clear, and it worked beautifully.
The main problem was all the times people asked what diet I was on, and how they wouldn't believe me when I told them "none", because of the old wives' tale that weight loss starts in the kitchen and is 80% diet. It's a bloody lie that people use as an excuse for not getting off the couch.
Now I am lean and no longer lose weight, but I continue exercising and simply eat more to keep my weight.
I only went from 30 BMI to a 28 BMI, which doesn't sound like much and still puts me as obese
No, 30+ is obese. 25-30 is "merely" overweight.
I'd still recommend that you start moving more and get more fit and lean. Glad you're on the right track with food, but that's not the whole equation, as I'm sure you know.
Walking without elevating your heart rate or breaking a sweat is worthless, even if you walked for hours.
I think it would be impossible to walk for hours without raising your heart rate, especially if you're not very fit. Just normal walking speed will put most people at the lower steady state heart rate level with slightly elevated breathing, and that does help.
When I get back, I hit the weights doing 5 sets of 100 reps each, followed by 100 push-ups, 100 sit-ups and 100-pull-ups, which altogether is another 30 minutes
... but does not count as cardio exercise. You're training your anaerobic muscles there, doing interval training, and getting more buff, not more fit.
Like many here, I'm above middle age, but fairly fit for my age, with a BMI of 20 and VO2max of 46. And the main reason is ... walking. Also some treadmill running and exercise bike, but mainly just walking.
What was your exercise program like ? I understood the # of minutes you need to exercise per week to reap cardiovascular benefits, for instance, was pretty large.
The average American watches TV for five and a half hours a day. If reducing that to half and using the extra time for aerobic exercise, it's more than enough to stay quite fit.
Since last winter, I now exercise 1-2 hours a day, plus 1-2 hours of walking for the sake of walking. This has transformed me from a blob with plenty of physical problems into a lean healthy person. Compared to the time I used to spend watching TV or play video games, it's not much.
But true, each session has to be long enough to reap heart and lung benefits. Cardio training is not like interval training where you can do a short burst and then rest - anything less than 20 minutes sustained activity won't do much good, and more is better.
The good thing is that after 20-60 minutes (varying for persons), you break through the wall where you want to stop, and reach a steady state where you can continue for hours.
The bad thing is that you have no excuse for rest days, because the red slow-twitch muscles don't need and don't benefit from them.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof.
This is clearly false. The god of most religions, including all the Christian varieties, is certainly within limits of proof of existence.
If a deity materialized a fifty mile long floating sign in the sky saying "I exist", and invited modern day Thomas to stick his test swabs in His wounds, the existence most certainly would be proven.
The claim that gods are outside the limits of proofs is contingent on the god not doing anything that is verifiable or that can be ascribed to other causes. In itself, that is heavy evidence (although not proof) that gods either do not exist, are impotent, or don't give a fuck.
As long as there is food, the deer will continue to breed and grow. I live in Colorado. The elk at Rocky Mountain National Park are so numerous that they are destroying the habitat there...
Again, you're looking at the short term process, not the future. As the amount of food goes down because of herbivores, the number of herbivores will go down too, and those left will look for easier sources of food. What's left of the habitat may be much less than what once were, but it is exceedingly rare that any wild species manage to grace anything to extinction. That there are too many deer is just another way of saying there is too much food. An equilibrium will be reached; it's how nature works when we don't interfere.
It is reaching its own equilibrium, which ends with the aspen grove being eaten away.
That's not given. Deer are relatively short-lived, and as they reduce their food source, their population will dwindle. Once it has reached a sufficiently small size, it is not going to be worth it for the remaining deer to trek there compared to finding larger food sources.
The aspen might end up as significantly smaller, but still survive.
We are the apex predators. We used to hunt deer. Now we don't nearly as much. We should hunt and eat deer again.
Barefoot, with spears.
How about less interference, and let nature come to an equilibrium?
It's also only looking at CO2, and ignoring the other pollution. Diesels put out a lot of harmful particulate matter right where people live and breathe.
And the cobalt in Li-Ion batteries isn't exactly healthy either, not to mention the strip-mining in Congo where most of it comes from.
The problem is that the warranties don't kick in before the batteries have deteriorated enough to significantly affect range. For at least some users who require the range, that means they will have to swap out the batteries before then.
Are you kidding? Have you ever tried maintaining your own email server? $500 is dirt cheap compared to maintaining your own.
Yeah, but you still have to maintain this one.
So what makes it better than a much cheaper micro-server with a fully configurable SMTP server? You're basically just paying for pointy-clicky and ropes that are shortened so you have less options.
The bad: the features are just... weird. Why does it uses a face-photo-unlock feature instead of just a regular NIP? It's not like the screen is too small to display 12 buttons in a 3x4 grid.
If part of the target audience includes physically active people, that makes sense. It's hard to unlock a phone to make a call with sweaty hands and/or gloves. It's easier to do a face unlock and then tell it to call.
If it wasn't $350, I could find use for it, like when I'm out running and don't want to carry a big phone with me, but still want to be able to make a call if I have to, do a quick map lookup, or pay with NFC. The size is not much bigger than the candybar phones of a few years ago, and those were far more handy - I currently have a "compact" phone, but it's still way bigger than is comfortable.
Where blockchain really shines is when you want a system whereby no individual parties are trusted.
That makes sense then - no-one trusts Sony, after all.
I fail to see what value a blockchain adds here over, say, signed certificates. Can someone explain the added value to either content creator, copyright holder or consumer that requires blockchain?
A more interesting and change I have notices in language that those young people use is that they have been started to call people for bots as an insult.
People did that on IRC back in the mid 90s.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Mobile phone users before then were mostly men.
Unlimited plans doubled the market by making it more attractive to women.
And data plans made them more attractive to the younger generation.
While there is a correlation between poverty and homelessness, the two are not the same. Many poor aren't homeless, and some people with decent income are migratory and without a home. And a very few live outside the monetary system, and qualify as poor by statistical measures, despite owning homes and land and living quite well.