Even if that perception is not warranted, taking that first step is a huge step for many.
I'll grant you that and I understand. But nonetheless, the problem is in the head of the person exercising rather than the fault of people who are more experienced. And that's all I was trying to say. Knowing that, it might actually help some people if they realise that the more experienced people in the gym either (a) don't care about you or (b) respect seeing someone making an effort regardless of their fitness level. And quite often are friendly and willing to help. Even the arsehole types who just want to be publically bigger than everyone else... well, to get there they've done a lot of working out and so they are probably happy to offer some suggestions (decline if they offer steroids though). If the worst that happens is the advice you get is accompanied by a slightly paternalistic attitude, you shouldn't let that stop you going to the gym. I understand what you're saying, but by making people aware of this, hopefully it actually does reduce the embarrassment they feel. Embarrassment is diminished when you realise that the people around you are either friendly or unconcerned.
Wasn't that pretty much what my second paragraph said?
Well you explicitly mentioned having greater strength as you got older and less risk of injury, but you didn't highlight that most fat gain with age is a consequence of reduced muscle and consequent reduction in RMR. True, it could be inferred, but given the amount of rubbish that's been posted on this story already, I'm felt the need to spell it out. Hope you don't mind.;)
No it isn't and you are posting potentially harmful information. When your body goes past a particular point of calorie reduction, it starts metabolising both its fat reserves and underused muscle. Your body doesn't know how long the "famine" will last. If it burned away all the fat first, then at the end of that process it would have a great load of expensive to maintain muscle for little benefit. If you lose your job, you don't wait until you've used up all your savings (fat) before you start cutting down on unnecessary spending (muscle that isn't being used a lot for exercise). Instead, you are more careful with your savings and you cut back on spending. Do you see?
If you severely cut back on calorie intake (around 15% or more below what you need for maintenance) and you're not offsetting muscle loss with exercise, you lose muscle along with the fat.
The rest of your information is hopelessly out of context. Don't advise people on health matters when you don't know what you're talking about. It's not like talking misinformed crap about Linux or Microsoft. It can harm people's health.
I don't know what others have experienced, but I have met a number of "iron pumpers" who feel compelled to tell me I'm doing an exercise wrong even when I'm not.
It's quite possible that they are trying to be friendly / helpful. If you're doing free weights, it's even quite possible that you are doing the exercise wrong whether you think you are or not. Often it's hard to see what you're doing incorrectly yourself. That's one of the reasons people watch themselves in the mirror when they do weights - they can see if their back is swinging when they do a barbell biceps curl or if its straight when they do a squat. You can always just have a conversation about it with whoever has offered the advice. Mistaken or not (and if they're obviously an experienced "iron pumper" why do assume they are incorrect?), they're offering help.
I'll just add a little to what you wrote if I may, for the benefit of anyone looking for advice. If you drop your calorie intake more than around 15% of what you actually need to maintain your weight, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you'll put your body into mild starvation mode, reducing your resting metabolism to conserve weight.
And on the subject of fat or muscle going first, yes - it does make sense if you're not needing that muscle for running or weights to start shedding it at the same time you shed fat. You might think that it makes sense to save the muscle for last, but you know that your not actually in a famine. All your body knows is that there's an unspecified amount of time with less food ahead of it. If it waits until the last minute to shed all that massive muscle of yours, then its going to have lots of muscle cannibalizing itself. Whereas if it starts early with the muscle, then that reduces the calories it needs for its daily activities and it can eek out both the muscle and fat a bit longer. If you lost your job and didn't know when you were going to get a new one, you wouldn't wait until you'd exhausted all your savings before you cut back on your spending, would you? Fat is your savings, muscle is your spendings. Your body is the one in charge of your finances, not the conscious mind saying "the diet will only last 1 month". That's why you convince your body that the spendings are necessary purchases by exercising, rather than just letting it all go to waste.
Protein bars taste pretty good these days and are quick and convenient to eat. They are not cheap though.
You get ripped off very badly in health food shops. If you're in the UK, you can get some really good quality stuff here. Alternately, just eat a proper meal after your workout which is best anyway. Work out before breakfast, before lunch or before your evening meal. Carbs after workout helps stimulate muscle growth and it also means that you'll be more likely to exercising on an empty stomach which helps stimulate fat burning (especially before breakfast).
Nonsense. Someone who is 40lbs overweight or has never weight trained can make much faster gains to begin with than someone who has been training for years and has to work far, far harder for that last lb or extra 5kg.
The only thing holding you back is your own shame. Do you think really fit guys at the gym are going to walk over and beat you up? Do you think they care that you're not as fit as them? Do you think for some reason they're offended by being fitter than you?
The majority of fat gain as you get older, is due to deterioration of muscle mass leading to a lower resting metabolic rate. Having muscle helps keep the weight off. As well as reduces the risk if impact injuries and helps actually doing things.
Oh that can cause the pounds to fall off you, no doubt. But starvation is very bad for anyone that actually wants to, you know, do something. Such as run, play squash, weight train or whatever. And its not sustainable either. All it does is tell your body that you're going into famine times and eventually, you come off it (or you are hospitalised) and your body does everything it can to pile on the pounds. Which go on even more easily this time because you have no muscle mass left either.
If people want to lose weight long term, they should look at cutting their calorie intake to around 15% of the amount of calories they need to maintain their weight. That's about the most you can do before your body starts to bring in all its starvation strategies such as reducing your energy levels. You should also combine it with some cardio-vascular work to keep you fit and some weight training to prevent muscle deterioration. Who cares if you're losing 1lb every 10 days. Six months from now, you'll be 18lbs lighter, much fitter, be able to continue at the same rate or faster and you wont be starting to rebound from some starvation period with no muscle mass and poor cardio-vascular fitness.
Atkins and Cambridge are both very bad for actually being, you know, fit. And neither tend to work long term.
Ah, sorry! I realised after posting that the rest of your comment was actually in contradiction to the first paragraph and that is was therefore probably intended as a quote. Saw two paragraphs the same and figured either someone had cocked up with their sock-puppetry, astroturfing was going on, or there was some popular source being quoted that I wasn't aware of. Obviously not the case after reading the whole post more carefully.
That's because the AMA has lobbied for (and received) federal rules that allow them to set the number of doctors (that is, to ration doctors) in order to keep salaries high.
This isn't adversarial - I'm asking for a reference for this because I'm interested. I have not heard this before. How does this work?
And there's the odd thing. For all the ideological ranting against socialised health care that the opponents of this bill are spewing forth, having looked at the bill it doesn't appear to actually be offering socialised health care at all - just a complex system that may actually turn out to be in the drug companies and insurance companies interests. This is weird. One faction arguing against socialised health care, one faction arguing for it (I am in this faction), and a health care bill that, other than on the surface, doesn't actually offer socialised healthcare. I'd say this bill requires people to take a closer look at it but at over a thousand pages, I don't think any of us have the time which is a victory against democracy for someone.
Thanks (also to the other poster). These are interesting and seem valid. I'd add a caveat that I'd need more detail about the regulation as a barrier to entry to evalutate whether it is good or bad - after all, you do want to enforce some minimum standards in such an important industry - but I understand your point.
I've read more thoroughly about this health care plan since this story was posted. Obviously I can't tell whether it is good or bad as it is over a thousand pages long. Quite frankly, it's hard to see how anyone can say whether it is good or bad when it's that long without spending a few weeks studying it and I'm not convinced that all the people reporting on this or voting on it have done so. I've been arguing in favour of a European-style socialist health care system and indeed, I am of the opinion that the model is better than what the USA has (though both are subject to implementation). But this health care act, it's not introducing such a model even though that is what its opponents seem to be railing against. Instead it's introducing what looks, to my uneducated eyes, to be a giant scaffold around a mess. I can't honestly tell if it's good or bad. I do know it's nothing like the European model that its opponents fear, however.
Did you miss the economic crises that is going on right now? Let's see how this works out before you declare how sustainable the welfare state is. Just because the various government have been able to keep the actual magnitude of losses relatively hidden doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Haha! No! I didn't miss the economic crisis that's going on. Did you notice how it's hit even the US with its private health care system? In fact, the dollar has now hit pretty much 1 to 1 against the Euro, so it appears the USA is being hit harder than most of Western Europe. Did you miss that the crisis was ignited by a massive housing bubble and unsecured loan powder keg that originated in the USA? What has this to do with socialised health care? And stop trying to generalise the issue to "the welfare state" - that just makes you sound like you're arguing on preconceived ideology rather than logic. And even though you are arguing on preconceived ideology, I'm sure you don't want to sound like it.
Given that we have actual facts and figures that show that per capita, the cost of the USA's health care system is higher than socialised systems like the UK's, Germany's and Canada's, do you want to tell me how countries with socialised health care are going to be less resiliant than the USA? Unemployment hit 10% in the USA this past week. Everyone getting their healthcare through their employers might be sustainable in the good times, but how do you think it's going to work out now?
Where does the money come from, and what happens to people who do not agree to cooperate?
Simple enough?
Plenty, thanks. The money comes from taxes and the same thing happens to people that don't cooperate that happens with tax that goes towards the police, fire service, road maintenance, government administration, embassies, etc. etc.
Whether the book was tedious or not, the idea that one should be self-sufficient and not demand that others provide for you is sound.
Not really. Humans are not cacti - we don't just sit in a desert and suck up moisture. We build, we relocate, we work and produce and farm and organise. The notion that a human being should be self-sufficient is a very unlikely one. We need to co-operate. And just as trade between nations enables both nations to be more efficient, so everyone contributing a little of their money to create a social health care service can lead to a greater efficiency within the nation.
why is it that/. gets all up in arms when the government wants to regulate the internet, or free speech, or any of that stuff and yet when the.gov wants to muck about with healthcare or other social services it's all "yay!! spend zillions of dollars and regulate the hell out of it!"
Government censoring free speech = bad outcomes for us.
Government providing health care at less cost than the Private US Health Care Industry = good outcomes for us.
There you go - the answer was quite simple. It's based on whether the result is good or bad, rather than on a gross simplification of what people are talking about for the purposes of trying to win an argument. I mean who says that/. is against "Internet regulation" ? Talking about privacy infringing an censorship? Sure - against it! Talking about mandating net neutrality? Great! Argument through vagueness is no argument at all, atrius.
Ah, inability to precisely predict the future invalidates the arguments, right? The last forty years of socialised health care hasn't destroyed the economies of the UK, Germany or France yet, but it might do any second! Just hang on! Okay - any minute now! Honestly, do you not recognized how poor your comment works as an argument? Given that health care per capita in Canada costs about 2/3rds of what it does in the USA (with a much higher satisfaction rate amongst Canadians with their service compared to the same survey carried out in the USA), then the logical question to ask is how much better the US economy would be in all that money were being spent more efficiently and freely by the US public?
So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?
Socialised Medicine = Government setting aside money to pay for facilities and physicians, and qualified people willingly taking those employment opportunities.
Slavery = Forcing people to work for you against their will.
Or you can forget safety features altogether and let Darwinism take over. Stupid kids get electrocuted, smart ones don't.
Correction: Curious kids get electrocuted. Sit on their arse and not bother kids don't. Yeah - lets hand everthing over to "Evolution" because it's a steady progression from worse to better, not a blind adaptation to changing environments. You might want to look up Teleology in the contet of evolutionary biology sometime. You might find it enlightening.
It also answers the Fermi Paradox (why in an enormous Universe that's been around for a very long time, we've yet to see signs of Intelligent Life) - sufficiently advanced species are improbable because its still more probable than a sufficiently advanced species that doesn't collapse it's existence due to creating Higgs Particles. To paraphrase Donnie Darko, every advanced civilisation, lives alone.
More like why do it, than why not do it? I don't mind a little masochism here and there, but in general, people don't like to experience pain. The whole point in pain is that it's unpleasant, otherwise it would have little benefit when it comes to natural selection because you'd actively seek out painful activities.
As I said - curiosity. About myself. About the research. Consciousness lets us overrule our basic instincts for our own advantage and this was just such a case. I knew the chance of actual harm was negligible so either I make the decision according to my reason or according to my basic instincts. Which for me was no choice at all!;)
A confusion of terms between you and the GP, there. The GP said that most of the world isn't on IE and meant that for most countries, IE wasn't the most popular browser. And that is relevant information as he's talking about relative distribution of browser usage. You've summed the users from all countries and said that the highest used is IE. That's also relevant information because you are talking about worldwide browser totals. But you're not talking about the same thing. The GP is actually correct in what he says (he's highlighting that the USA's "IE = the Internet" mindset is less prevalent in other parts of the world. However, you think he's saying something else.
Slashdot Mirror
Helpless people on subway trains, scream 'My God' as he looks in on them.
I'll grant you that and I understand. But nonetheless, the problem is in the head of the person exercising rather than the fault of people who are more experienced. And that's all I was trying to say. Knowing that, it might actually help some people if they realise that the more experienced people in the gym either (a) don't care about you or (b) respect seeing someone making an effort regardless of their fitness level. And quite often are friendly and willing to help. Even the arsehole types who just want to be publically bigger than everyone else... well, to get there they've done a lot of working out and so they are probably happy to offer some suggestions (decline if they offer steroids though). If the worst that happens is the advice you get is accompanied by a slightly paternalistic attitude, you shouldn't let that stop you going to the gym. I understand what you're saying, but by making people aware of this, hopefully it actually does reduce the embarrassment they feel. Embarrassment is diminished when you realise that the people around you are either friendly or unconcerned.
Well you explicitly mentioned having greater strength as you got older and less risk of injury, but you didn't highlight that most fat gain with age is a consequence of reduced muscle and consequent reduction in RMR. True, it could be inferred, but given the amount of rubbish that's been posted on this story already, I'm felt the need to spell it out. Hope you don't mind. ;)
No it isn't and you are posting potentially harmful information. When your body goes past a particular point of calorie reduction, it starts metabolising both its fat reserves and underused muscle. Your body doesn't know how long the "famine" will last. If it burned away all the fat first, then at the end of that process it would have a great load of expensive to maintain muscle for little benefit. If you lose your job, you don't wait until you've used up all your savings (fat) before you start cutting down on unnecessary spending (muscle that isn't being used a lot for exercise). Instead, you are more careful with your savings and you cut back on spending. Do you see?
If you severely cut back on calorie intake (around 15% or more below what you need for maintenance) and you're not offsetting muscle loss with exercise, you lose muscle along with the fat.
The rest of your information is hopelessly out of context. Don't advise people on health matters when you don't know what you're talking about. It's not like talking misinformed crap about Linux or Microsoft. It can harm people's health.
It's quite possible that they are trying to be friendly / helpful. If you're doing free weights, it's even quite possible that you are doing the exercise wrong whether you think you are or not. Often it's hard to see what you're doing incorrectly yourself. That's one of the reasons people watch themselves in the mirror when they do weights - they can see if their back is swinging when they do a barbell biceps curl or if its straight when they do a squat. You can always just have a conversation about it with whoever has offered the advice. Mistaken or not (and if they're obviously an experienced "iron pumper" why do assume they are incorrect?), they're offering help.
I'll just add a little to what you wrote if I may, for the benefit of anyone looking for advice. If you drop your calorie intake more than around 15% of what you actually need to maintain your weight, you're pretty much guaranteeing that you'll put your body into mild starvation mode, reducing your resting metabolism to conserve weight.
And on the subject of fat or muscle going first, yes - it does make sense if you're not needing that muscle for running or weights to start shedding it at the same time you shed fat. You might think that it makes sense to save the muscle for last, but you know that your not actually in a famine. All your body knows is that there's an unspecified amount of time with less food ahead of it. If it waits until the last minute to shed all that massive muscle of yours, then its going to have lots of muscle cannibalizing itself. Whereas if it starts early with the muscle, then that reduces the calories it needs for its daily activities and it can eek out both the muscle and fat a bit longer. If you lost your job and didn't know when you were going to get a new one, you wouldn't wait until you'd exhausted all your savings before you cut back on your spending, would you? Fat is your savings, muscle is your spendings. Your body is the one in charge of your finances, not the conscious mind saying "the diet will only last 1 month". That's why you convince your body that the spendings are necessary purchases by exercising, rather than just letting it all go to waste.
You get ripped off very badly in health food shops. If you're in the UK, you can get some really good quality stuff here. Alternately, just eat a proper meal after your workout which is best anyway. Work out before breakfast, before lunch or before your evening meal. Carbs after workout helps stimulate muscle growth and it also means that you'll be more likely to exercising on an empty stomach which helps stimulate fat burning (especially before breakfast).
Nonsense. Someone who is 40lbs overweight or has never weight trained can make much faster gains to begin with than someone who has been training for years and has to work far, far harder for that last lb or extra 5kg.
The only thing holding you back is your own shame. Do you think really fit guys at the gym are going to walk over and beat you up? Do you think they care that you're not as fit as them? Do you think for some reason they're offended by being fitter than you?
The majority of fat gain as you get older, is due to deterioration of muscle mass leading to a lower resting metabolic rate. Having muscle helps keep the weight off. As well as reduces the risk if impact injuries and helps actually doing things.
Oh that can cause the pounds to fall off you, no doubt. But starvation is very bad for anyone that actually wants to, you know, do something. Such as run, play squash, weight train or whatever. And its not sustainable either. All it does is tell your body that you're going into famine times and eventually, you come off it (or you are hospitalised) and your body does everything it can to pile on the pounds. Which go on even more easily this time because you have no muscle mass left either.
If people want to lose weight long term, they should look at cutting their calorie intake to around 15% of the amount of calories they need to maintain their weight. That's about the most you can do before your body starts to bring in all its starvation strategies such as reducing your energy levels. You should also combine it with some cardio-vascular work to keep you fit and some weight training to prevent muscle deterioration. Who cares if you're losing 1lb every 10 days. Six months from now, you'll be 18lbs lighter, much fitter, be able to continue at the same rate or faster and you wont be starting to rebound from some starvation period with no muscle mass and poor cardio-vascular fitness.
Atkins and Cambridge are both very bad for actually being, you know, fit. And neither tend to work long term.
Ah, sorry! I realised after posting that the rest of your comment was actually in contradiction to the first paragraph and that is was therefore probably intended as a quote. Saw two paragraphs the same and figured either someone had cocked up with their sock-puppetry, astroturfing was going on, or there was some popular source being quoted that I wasn't aware of. Obviously not the case after reading the whole post more carefully.
Regards,
H.
This isn't adversarial - I'm asking for a reference for this because I'm interested. I have not heard this before. How does this work?
And there's the odd thing. For all the ideological ranting against socialised health care that the opponents of this bill are spewing forth, having looked at the bill it doesn't appear to actually be offering socialised health care at all - just a complex system that may actually turn out to be in the drug companies and insurance companies interests. This is weird. One faction arguing against socialised health care, one faction arguing for it (I am in this faction), and a health care bill that, other than on the surface, doesn't actually offer socialised healthcare. I'd say this bill requires people to take a closer look at it but at over a thousand pages, I don't think any of us have the time which is a victory against democracy for someone.
I'm curious as to why the wording in your post is identical to the wording in jcr's post just above it?
Thanks (also to the other poster). These are interesting and seem valid. I'd add a caveat that I'd need more detail about the regulation as a barrier to entry to evalutate whether it is good or bad - after all, you do want to enforce some minimum standards in such an important industry - but I understand your point.
I've read more thoroughly about this health care plan since this story was posted. Obviously I can't tell whether it is good or bad as it is over a thousand pages long. Quite frankly, it's hard to see how anyone can say whether it is good or bad when it's that long without spending a few weeks studying it and I'm not convinced that all the people reporting on this or voting on it have done so. I've been arguing in favour of a European-style socialist health care system and indeed, I am of the opinion that the model is better than what the USA has (though both are subject to implementation). But this health care act, it's not introducing such a model even though that is what its opponents seem to be railing against. Instead it's introducing what looks, to my uneducated eyes, to be a giant scaffold around a mess. I can't honestly tell if it's good or bad. I do know it's nothing like the European model that its opponents fear, however.
Haha! No! I didn't miss the economic crisis that's going on. Did you notice how it's hit even the US with its private health care system? In fact, the dollar has now hit pretty much 1 to 1 against the Euro, so it appears the USA is being hit harder than most of Western Europe. Did you miss that the crisis was ignited by a massive housing bubble and unsecured loan powder keg that originated in the USA? What has this to do with socialised health care? And stop trying to generalise the issue to "the welfare state" - that just makes you sound like you're arguing on preconceived ideology rather than logic. And even though you are arguing on preconceived ideology, I'm sure you don't want to sound like it.
Given that we have actual facts and figures that show that per capita, the cost of the USA's health care system is higher than socialised systems like the UK's, Germany's and Canada's, do you want to tell me how countries with socialised health care are going to be less resiliant than the USA? Unemployment hit 10% in the USA this past week. Everyone getting their healthcare through their employers might be sustainable in the good times, but how do you think it's going to work out now?
Plenty, thanks. The money comes from taxes and the same thing happens to people that don't cooperate that happens with tax that goes towards the police, fire service, road maintenance, government administration, embassies, etc. etc.
Not really. Humans are not cacti - we don't just sit in a desert and suck up moisture. We build, we relocate, we work and produce and farm and organise. The notion that a human being should be self-sufficient is a very unlikely one. We need to co-operate. And just as trade between nations enables both nations to be more efficient, so everyone contributing a little of their money to create a social health care service can lead to a greater efficiency within the nation.
Government censoring free speech = bad outcomes for us. Government providing health care at less cost than the Private US Health Care Industry = good outcomes for us.
/. is against "Internet regulation" ? Talking about privacy infringing an censorship? Sure - against it! Talking about mandating net neutrality? Great! Argument through vagueness is no argument at all, atrius.
There you go - the answer was quite simple. It's based on whether the result is good or bad, rather than on a gross simplification of what people are talking about for the purposes of trying to win an argument. I mean who says that
Ah, inability to precisely predict the future invalidates the arguments, right? The last forty years of socialised health care hasn't destroyed the economies of the UK, Germany or France yet, but it might do any second! Just hang on! Okay - any minute now! Honestly, do you not recognized how poor your comment works as an argument? Given that health care per capita in Canada costs about 2/3rds of what it does in the USA (with a much higher satisfaction rate amongst Canadians with their service compared to the same survey carried out in the USA), then the logical question to ask is how much better the US economy would be in all that money were being spent more efficiently and freely by the US public?
Can you give us some examples of how government interference in the Health Industry helps medical insurers hike prices higher than they ought to be?
Socialised Medicine = Government setting aside money to pay for facilities and physicians, and qualified people willingly taking those employment opportunities.
Slavery = Forcing people to work for you against their will.
Simple enough?
Correction: Curious kids get electrocuted. Sit on their arse and not bother kids don't. Yeah - lets hand everthing over to "Evolution" because it's a steady progression from worse to better, not a blind adaptation to changing environments. You might want to look up Teleology in the contet of evolutionary biology sometime. You might find it enlightening.
It also answers the Fermi Paradox (why in an enormous Universe that's been around for a very long time, we've yet to see signs of Intelligent Life) - sufficiently advanced species are improbable because its still more probable than a sufficiently advanced species that doesn't collapse it's existence due to creating Higgs Particles. To paraphrase Donnie Darko, every advanced civilisation, lives alone.
As I said - curiosity. About myself. About the research. Consciousness lets us overrule our basic instincts for our own advantage and this was just such a case. I knew the chance of actual harm was negligible so either I make the decision according to my reason or according to my basic instincts. Which for me was no choice at all! ;)
A confusion of terms between you and the GP, there. The GP said that most of the world isn't on IE and meant that for most countries, IE wasn't the most popular browser. And that is relevant information as he's talking about relative distribution of browser usage. You've summed the users from all countries and said that the highest used is IE. That's also relevant information because you are talking about worldwide browser totals. But you're not talking about the same thing. The GP is actually correct in what he says (he's highlighting that the USA's "IE = the Internet" mindset is less prevalent in other parts of the world. However, you think he's saying something else.