Ummm. That's exactly why you want to raise your metabolism by using strength training (the part you quoted). You're almost guaranteed to eat as many calories as you used working out, since your body wants to replace all the glycogen you've burned, and neither aerobic activity nor lifting actually burn that many calories.
Damaging your body by using strength training maintains muscle and bone mass as you grow older, making you a healthy old person instead of someone bent over like an old Korean woman and too weak to walk to the end of the Twinkie aisle. In fact, using your body keeps you healthy and may postpone your death by natural causes.
You misunderstood me (in the context of the thread) or I was unclear (taken as an individual post). Muscle is not the first thing to go. Muscle is lost before fat. I wasn't talking about water loss at all.
I got the myth from the training sites that all state your starving body will use glycogen first, then muscle, then fat. I know of no research to back this up. There is, however, a ton of supporting information on the web, including Wikipedia (dieting) and articles explaining how to avoid muscle loss while dieting. If you have some supporting evidence that dieting by itself does not cause muscle loss, I'll be happy to rethink my position.
40+. Started working out about four years ago. Before that, I was 100% sedentary. My knees used to suck and I had ACL problems so I'd fall on the floor like a sack of potatoes if I turned wrong. Squats, deadlifts, and leg presses put my legs in great shape and the extra muscle keeps my knees stable and pain-free. I have better knees now than I did in my 20s though I weigh 20-25kg more.
You know what really helps with that "Exercise takes so long and I get so little out of it" feeling? Commuting by biking. If it takes me fifteen minutes to get to work in traffic, it'll take me maybe thirty or less by bike. That's leveraging my time. I get 25-30 minutes of exercise with a time investment of 10-15 minutes. I get to zip past a lot of people waiting in their cars. You may also get better parking and kudos from your company for being green -- I don't.
I understand your situation as a woman: I went through all this with my girfriend, and she's my workout partner. She did get down to flat abs and muscular legs, but she had to watch her carb a lot more than I did in order to get to that point. It was a lot harder for her, but we used essentially the same system.
As you said, women have a lot less testosterone: it's really difficult for most women to pack on muscle. From that standpoint, I don't think very many women have to worry about becoming muscle-bound, unless they're on hormone therapy or something.
There's also this whole genetics situation. I was 110kg and failing to drop weight virtually no matter what I did. I decided that if I was destined to be a big guy, I might as well make my chest an legs larger so that my waist looked smaller in comparison. My gal was the same way. She'd been big her whole life. Over the last three years, her legs went from big and flabby to big and strong. I don't think there was an option C (for small legs). She's a muscular 65kg and hhhhot. Who's going to bitch about that?
These days, trainers recommend avoiding the hour-long cardio seesions and doing the same amount of work in half the time as interval training. Your gym time just got cut in half.;)
When I get short of time, I also like to like to set up a routine for antagonistic supersets, which need less rest and can cut your lifting time by 30-40%. (When I have the time, though, I still prefer to lift heavy and rest a lot.;) )
But the studies which I've seen which look at BMI don't differentiate between fat and muscular. You can tell if these diseases correlate somewhat to body mass, if they correlate highly to fat mass and lowly to muscle mass, or if the converse is true. Most older, larger people are fat, not muscular.
I misspoke. You can use calories as your only measurement. Generally, though, when you simply cut calories, you lose lean mass first, and don't start burning off fat for a long time.
Sure, you lose weight, but keeping that weight off is harder than ever, and who wants to be the skinny, flabby guy? Not me.
Muscle mass is a really important point. I don't understand the obsession with weight. I went from 32% body fat to 15% body fat and weighed exactly the same. Guess which one of those left me feeling and looking better?
The researchers in the story ignored all the signs from the last ten years which point to strength training being the most important part of a regimen designed to reduce fat. When you do cardio (especially that slow, "fat-burning" cardio), you burn a few calories, and when you step off the machine, you're done. When you train for strength, you burn fewer calories, but your body spends the next twenty-four hours burning extra calories trying to repair the damage you've done. Doing anaerobic / aerobic intervals on a cardio machine has a similar effect, and when you put the two together, you really shed the fat.
You also need to watch your food intake so that your insulin levels stay as constant as possible. That means eating difficult-to-digest (generally "whole") foods instead of processed ones. Your body isn't just a black box. Eating some amount of calories in oatmeal and eating the same amount in breakfast cereal will have different results: your body works harder to digest the oatmeal so your metabolism is higher, resulting in lower total calories; the added fiber changes how your body digests the other food in your digestive system.
Cutting calories is a myth. In fact, while losing about 20kg of fat and putting on the same amount in muscle, I ate more than I had eaten before I started the program. I ate more. I exercised more. The ratio of calories coming in to those going out probably didn't change, but that increase in the total drove my body into overdrive and tricked it into ramping up my metabolism even further than the exercise amounted to.
Above all the myriad claims of failure to work on some hardware (sound and X issues), 8.04LTS released with a default application which didn't run on a supported arch. There's no excuse for that.
Pulse was introduced and was flakey, introducing all Ubuntu users to pulseaudio -k && pulseaudio.
Flash sound interfered with Pulse, so libflashsupport was introduces, but wouldn't work for more than an hour, so was dropped a day before the final release, leaving Flash to tie up ALSA.
F-Spot (the default photo manager) didn't launch on 64-bit due to a late change in Mono.
Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Don't pretend that the LTS gets any more love than the regular releases do. It just gets supported longer.
p.s. I think Canonical made its only sane choice in years by announcing that 10.10LTS will be based on GNOME 2, and not the then-to-be brand new GNOME 3.0.
You (Dangitman) are arguing about developer freedom, while Mixmatch is arguing about user freedom. Don't conflate the two and you won't be arguing. (At the least, you'll be arguing philosophy instead of the definition of a word.)
Yes, it should. Most humans have no difficulty in seeing the difference in making a photocopy of a book and reading a book.
Give it a few years, and I guaranteee there will be lawyers arguing IM's position. "Most humans" and "lawyers trying to prove a case" have no relation to each other."
Microsoft had gross profits of 46+ billion USD, while Apple had 13+. Thirty-three billion dollars (the difference) is a lot of money. In fact, it's damn close to _all_ of Apple's revenue.
This is why I always laugh at people who scream "I would never allow our company's e-mail to be hosted by a third party. I guess they don't realize that it travels through numerous, untrusted servers in plain text. (Of course, my snark ignores intra-office e-mail, but no one ever says "I wouldn't trust my company's internal e-mail with a third party.")
I tried to move from G.A. to Zoho, but Zoho ate my work three times in two days.I showed up at my presentations only to find the files were corrupted on Zoho's servers. That takes away the only reason to use a web-based office app.
I want to love Abi, and I have worked with it for short periods several times over the last ten years, but I never stay. Sorry about that. I just always end up needing something that Abi doesn't have.
I appreciate all the work you and the rest of the team has done, and I feel truly sad that OO.o took all the headlines from Abiword (and Gnumeric, and KOffice). I think we (the FOSS community) would be further along right now if OO.o hadn't been released.
I know that you're understaffed and don't get the media coverage you deserve. I'd love to help, but I haven't coded anything since the mid 80s.
It's really more about the real-time collab aspect than the web app part. Abiword has had collab for a while, but it was kind of difficult to set up. Hopefully, AbiCollab makes this process simpler. Eventually, I'd like to see the collab move toward Telepathy so that I can just use my contact list and connect that way. The revisions and everything sound awesome, though.
Crown-authorized copyright given to printers, c. 1500-1700
Modern copyright law, giving the rights to the authors, not the publishers, c. 1700- 1975
Work for hire was later codified and artists' contracts typically had a WFH clause, 1976 - pres.
I'm surprised you didn't immediately identify what he was talking about, since you seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject of copyrights and have strong thoughts on it.
Slashdot Mirror
The research in the article looked at aerobic activity, not strength training. The results exactly parrot what I said in my post:
When you do cardio (especially that slow, "fat-burning" cardio), you burn a few calories, and when you step off the machine, you're done.
Most people could. It's not that much of a feat. ;)
Ummm. That's exactly why you want to raise your metabolism by using strength training (the part you quoted). You're almost guaranteed to eat as many calories as you used working out, since your body wants to replace all the glycogen you've burned, and neither aerobic activity nor lifting actually burn that many calories.
Damaging your body by using strength training maintains muscle and bone mass as you grow older, making you a healthy old person instead of someone bent over like an old Korean woman and too weak to walk to the end of the Twinkie aisle. In fact, using your body keeps you healthy and may postpone your death by natural causes.
Or were you being sarcastic?
You misunderstood me (in the context of the thread) or I was unclear (taken as an individual post). Muscle is not the first thing to go. Muscle is lost before fat. I wasn't talking about water loss at all.
I got the myth from the training sites that all state your starving body will use glycogen first, then muscle, then fat. I know of no research to back this up. There is, however, a ton of supporting information on the web, including Wikipedia (dieting) and articles explaining how to avoid muscle loss while dieting. If you have some supporting evidence that dieting by itself does not cause muscle loss, I'll be happy to rethink my position.
164cm and 65kg. I'm 192cm and 110kg. Neither of us is small for the height.
40+. Started working out about four years ago. Before that, I was 100% sedentary. My knees used to suck and I had ACL problems so I'd fall on the floor like a sack of potatoes if I turned wrong. Squats, deadlifts, and leg presses put my legs in great shape and the extra muscle keeps my knees stable and pain-free. I have better knees now than I did in my 20s though I weigh 20-25kg more.
You know what really helps with that "Exercise takes so long and I get so little out of it" feeling? Commuting by biking. If it takes me fifteen minutes to get to work in traffic, it'll take me maybe thirty or less by bike. That's leveraging my time. I get 25-30 minutes of exercise with a time investment of 10-15 minutes. I get to zip past a lot of people waiting in their cars. You may also get better parking and kudos from your company for being green -- I don't.
Of course, it helps if you
I understand your situation as a woman: I went through all this with my girfriend, and she's my workout partner. She did get down to flat abs and muscular legs, but she had to watch her carb a lot more than I did in order to get to that point. It was a lot harder for her, but we used essentially the same system.
As you said, women have a lot less testosterone: it's really difficult for most women to pack on muscle. From that standpoint, I don't think very many women have to worry about becoming muscle-bound, unless they're on hormone therapy or something.
There's also this whole genetics situation. I was 110kg and failing to drop weight virtually no matter what I did. I decided that if I was destined to be a big guy, I might as well make my chest an legs larger so that my waist looked smaller in comparison. My gal was the same way. She'd been big her whole life. Over the last three years, her legs went from big and flabby to big and strong. I don't think there was an option C (for small legs). She's a muscular 65kg and hhhhot. Who's going to bitch about that?
These days, trainers recommend avoiding the hour-long cardio seesions and doing the same amount of work in half the time as interval training. Your gym time just got cut in half. ;)
When I get short of time, I also like to like to set up a routine for antagonistic supersets, which need less rest and can cut your lifting time by 30-40%. (When I have the time, though, I still prefer to lift heavy and rest a lot. ;) )
But the studies which I've seen which look at BMI don't differentiate between fat and muscular. You can tell if these diseases correlate somewhat to body mass, if they correlate highly to fat mass and lowly to muscle mass, or if the converse is true. Most older, larger people are fat, not muscular.
I misspoke. You can use calories as your only measurement. Generally, though, when you simply cut calories, you lose lean mass first, and don't start burning off fat for a long time.
Sure, you lose weight, but keeping that weight off is harder than ever, and who wants to be the skinny, flabby guy? Not me.
Muscle mass is a really important point. I don't understand the obsession with weight. I went from 32% body fat to 15% body fat and weighed exactly the same. Guess which one of those left me feeling and looking better?
The researchers in the story ignored all the signs from the last ten years which point to strength training being the most important part of a regimen designed to reduce fat. When you do cardio (especially that slow, "fat-burning" cardio), you burn a few calories, and when you step off the machine, you're done. When you train for strength, you burn fewer calories, but your body spends the next twenty-four hours burning extra calories trying to repair the damage you've done. Doing anaerobic / aerobic intervals on a cardio machine has a similar effect, and when you put the two together, you really shed the fat.
You also need to watch your food intake so that your insulin levels stay as constant as possible. That means eating difficult-to-digest (generally "whole") foods instead of processed ones. Your body isn't just a black box. Eating some amount of calories in oatmeal and eating the same amount in breakfast cereal will have different results: your body works harder to digest the oatmeal so your metabolism is higher, resulting in lower total calories; the added fiber changes how your body digests the other food in your digestive system.
Cutting calories is a myth. In fact, while losing about 20kg of fat and putting on the same amount in muscle, I ate more than I had eaten before I started the program. I ate more. I exercised more. The ratio of calories coming in to those going out probably didn't change, but that increase in the total drove my body into overdrive and tricked it into ramping up my metabolism even further than the exercise amounted to.
Above all the myriad claims of failure to work on some hardware (sound and X issues), 8.04LTS released with a default application which didn't run on a supported arch. There's no excuse for that.
LTS was bleeding edge and broken on release, too:
Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Don't pretend that the LTS gets any more love than the regular releases do. It just gets supported longer.
p.s. I think Canonical made its only sane choice in years by announcing that 10.10LTS will be based on GNOME 2, and not the then-to-be brand new GNOME 3.0.
I've been saying since 8.04 (when they released with default applications that wouldn't launch) that Ubuntu is a "wait for SP1" distribution.
and, yes, even Linux are licensed to you, with restrictions.
If you are talking about the GPL, you are not bound by it unless you distribute. Repeat: you are not bound by a license as a Linux user.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
You (Dangitman) are arguing about developer freedom, while Mixmatch is arguing about user freedom. Don't conflate the two and you won't be arguing. (At the least, you'll be arguing philosophy instead of the definition of a word.)
Yes, it should. Most humans have no difficulty in seeing the difference in making a photocopy of a book and reading a book.
Give it a few years, and I guaranteee there will be lawyers arguing IM's position. "Most humans" and "lawyers trying to prove a case" have no relation to each other."
Shouldn't a boxed copy with serial be sufficient? Is the implication that they stole the boxes?
Microsoft had gross profits of 46+ billion USD, while Apple had 13+. Thirty-three billion dollars (the difference) is a lot of money. In fact, it's damn close to _all_ of Apple's revenue.
I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind a piece of that.
This is why I always laugh at people who scream "I would never allow our company's e-mail to be hosted by a third party. I guess they don't realize that it travels through numerous, untrusted servers in plain text. (Of course, my snark ignores intra-office e-mail, but no one ever says "I wouldn't trust my company's internal e-mail with a third party.")
I tried to move from G.A. to Zoho, but Zoho ate my work three times in two days.I showed up at my presentations only to find the files were corrupted on Zoho's servers. That takes away the only reason to use a web-based office app.
I want to love Abi, and I have worked with it for short periods several times over the last ten years, but I never stay. Sorry about that. I just always end up needing something that Abi doesn't have.
I appreciate all the work you and the rest of the team has done, and I feel truly sad that OO.o took all the headlines from Abiword (and Gnumeric, and KOffice). I think we (the FOSS community) would be further along right now if OO.o hadn't been released.
I know that you're understaffed and don't get the media coverage you deserve. I'd love to help, but I haven't coded anything since the mid 80s.
It's really more about the real-time collab aspect than the web app part. Abiword has had collab for a while, but it was kind of difficult to set up. Hopefully, AbiCollab makes this process simpler. Eventually, I'd like to see the collab move toward Telepathy so that I can just use my contact list and connect that way. The revisions and everything sound awesome, though.
Calm down. I'm prety sure he's talking about the long history of copyright law:
I'm surprised you didn't immediately identify what he was talking about, since you seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject of copyrights and have strong thoughts on it.