@Misadventure said:
I see you quoting me, and nothing else. Were you trying to say something?
Yes. You were talking about lazy writing ruining the ability to suspend disbelief. I cited to the introduction of midi-chlorians into the Star Wars universe to explain the "unique" nature of Anakin Skywalker. It was a horrible idea, and a product of awful writing.
@SG said:
I think the trick is to eat more often, rather than more calories. So more frequent, smaller meals so your metabolism is always going.
I think that's part of it. Eating more allows you to eat less at each meal, which will help keep accidental calorie-gorging down. But more than one health professional has pointed out that your stomach may not shrink, and you may end up rebounding soon.
By "eating more," I mean "eat more healthy stuff." Eating 500 calories of broccoli will stuff your stomach with more than 500 calories of meat, which ought to be more than 500 calories of sugar. And so on.
I'm currently trying to adjust my diet, but I'll be honest: I'm a gourmand. I like good, tasty food -- French, especially -- so I have to be very, very judicious. My other problem: I do like drinking.
@FiranSurvivor said:
Thanks for the advice. Any chance you got any good videos for those various workouts or infographics?
Actually, if you google-search or Youtube the names of the exercises, they should come up for you. Some of the moves are complex, like the sit-throughs, so you may need to work up to those.
I also like to do a bodyweight regimen, and then shadow-box for 20 minutes to "cool-down," which is actually a burning session whilst my heart rate is up. For the shadow-boxing, I do 40 sets of 20 seconds on, 10 seconds off, for a total of 20 minutes. I start with a 10 jab exercises, then 10 hook exercises, then 10 uppercut exercises, and then finish with 10 jab-jab-hook-uppercut combos. Each of the blocks consists of alternating left-foot then right-foot stances, 5 each side.
As @Arkandel said, the best routine is what you can stick to. This is the most effective routine I've used to maintain my weight, and if I stopped drinking so much, I'd probably be a lot lighter.
@Arkandel said:
I don't see how this is debatable.
That's because you're not addressing the issues up for debate. You're hooked onto your idea, and you won't let go.
If you reduce your calories too low, you're going to put your body into starvation mode. Everyone enjoys and is subject to homeostasis. If you cut calories, your body is going to want calories. If you deprive it, it thinks you're starving. If you're starving, you are going to store energy into fat because fat is easier to burn later for energy to keep your tissues alive. Protein is harder to burn, so your body will naturally try to eat it and convert it to fat.
If you decide to go this route, you're going to start to store fat and lose muscle unless you exercise. If you exercise with the drop in calories, you're going to preserve muscle and force your body to burn fat instead, despite being in starvation mode.
Ultimately, you will lose more weight -- better weight -- by actually eating more and burning more energy via exercise. And by eating more, I mean eating more healthy food, like vegetables. Because nothing trick fucks your body into burning fat than eating 5 pounds of broccoli and carrots a day, and working out for an hour or so.
@FiranSurvivor said:
Anyone here work 9-5 (or in reality 10-11 hours when you factor in drive time), if so, and you keep fit. HOW DO YOU DO IT.
I have 2-year-old twins.
It depends on what you mean by "keeping fit." I'm not in the same shape I was in my twenties. I could try to push myself there, but that would require a time investment I'm not prepared to give, along with eschewing things which, in my old age, I have earned.
I like to do interval body-weight training, kind of like P90X or Insanity, but without the videos. I had a minor pectoral strain about 2 months ago that restricted my workouts, but I've been getting back into it. If you're interested, read up on the topic, and then try this workout.
Get the Interval Timer for your iPad or other tablet/phone thingy. Create a program of 8 cycles of 8 sets of 0:20 high and 0:10 low intensity periods, with 1:00 of rest time in between. That should set you up for 8 sets of 8 exercises, 20 seconds on, 10 seconds rest.
Here are the eight exercises:
Quad Squat Press
Bodyweight Sit-Through
Glute bridge
Lunges (alternate legs)
Push-ups
Bodyweight Tripod (alternate arms)
Plank (on elbows)
Squats
That should take 40 minutes to get through, not including warm-ups. I'd recommend 5 minutes of dynamic warm-ups prior, and 5 minutes of yoga stretching afterwards.
Give it a shot. You can do it at home, in the privacy of your own bedroom. If you're starting out, wear sneakers; otherwise, try it barefoot.
@Arkandel said:
However what it comes down to is that cutting calories is by very far more efficient than increasing exercise if one's goal is fat loss.
This is very, very debatable, and, frankly, I disagree for the reasons presented by @Derp. Reducing your calories may actually lead to fat gain, but weight loss from atrophied muscle. Exercise therefore is critical to the weight loss people actually seek to achieve.
As the old axiom has it, six-packs aren't made in the gym, they're made in the kitchen.
It's an axiom, but that doesn't make it correct. All of those starving kids overseas don't have six-packs for a reason. When they say that six-packs are made in the kitchen, they probably mean that six-packs are the result of smart eating choices, which does not necessarily mean fewer calories.
@Arkandel said:
Although that's true, losing excess weight is a matter of diet regulation a whole lot more than adding additional exercise.
Actually, it's a matter of both, in equal measure. Simply, if energy spent > energy gained, you'll lose weight.
Diet regulation is tricky, sure, but adding exercise can make diet regulation less critical. Plus, you aren't going to lose weight if you crash on calories, and do nothing because you have no bloody energy.
@JaySherman said:
I sometimes wonder if there isn't a psychological disconnect of interest in playing out mundane IC hobknobbing/reporting/manuevering due to the amount of OOC knowledge of what's happened IC.
I attribute this to the movement of games away from rewarding players for just being out and RPing. Most games have opted for a flat-XP increase, with activity-XP increases based on PRP involvement and running.
I also attribute the aging/maturing of the hobby's participants. After a full day of work, my mind would like a little break. With kids, my patience is limited. So, there are fewer people willing to gin up NPCs, PRPs, and other plottage on a nightly basis.
@HelloRaptor said:
Keep in mind that I'm a heathen who not only loved pretty much everything about Man of Steel, but thought the end with Zod was basically epic and spot on. It wasn't the first time Superman had killed someone, not even the first time he'd killed Zod, so people griping about that always seemed way off base to me.
I liked Zod a lot, but I really hated much about that movie. I blame that on Snyder, rather than Goyer.
@Jaded said:
Everyone has their priorities. For me, Satoru Itawa was one of the few game company executives that was worth respecting. He held a firm believe that video games should be fun, and fun for everyone.
I admire his integrity. I question his effectiveness.
@Luna said:
When I was married and on Tricare, my doctor took it out of charity to the military and their families. It didn't pay shit. Why should someone who devotes so much of their life caring for others be relegated to chump change?
They shouldn't, and, in most Western nations, the government pays quite well. In Canada, doctors willing to head to remote places can get up to double what others receive for the same services (and end up having to pay that for basic resources, still). In other nations, the government may forgive loans made to their doctors for a return of service.
The reason why Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare pays so poorly is because of a lack of political will to reform the entire system. If you boost the public payments, the lower and middle classes bear the burden. The lower arguably receive the care, so the payments balance, but the middle classes will get fucked. The government knows this, so they don't do anything about it. In the short-term, this is a political ploy. In the long-term, it is sheer idiocy.
If you raise Medicare/Medicaid/Tricare and increase its availability by, oh, making it available to everyone on an income-basis (those who make less money pay less; those who make more pay more), you will make it competitive and acceptable to consumers and providers. That would force the private insurers to become more competitive, or leave the market. But, Heaven forbid you make any red-blooded American support the idea of a "crown corporation" in the economy, despite the fact that the federal government is one of the largest corporate suppliers, employers, and consumers in the fucking economy.
I try not to think about all of this shit on a daily basis, because it pushes me further towards the Comedian's mentality about things. But then, if you hear about a lawyer-turned-supervillain in the news, that'd be me.
@Derp said:
I'm one of those players that will respond with silence. Not because I don't want to RP with you or anything, but because I absolutely am one of those people who doesn't wish to participate in all the things all the time, even if some of the people that I like to RP with absolutely are those kinds of people.
You're probably not one of those people that complains about having nothing to do, however. And, so, you are not my target audience nor the target of my ire.
@Shebakoby said:
The point i was making about the taxes is it's probably every bit as "gouging" as the companies' prices.
I somehow missed this. You're not even close.
Taxes aren't great, especially in Canada. Those ad valorem taxes really slam the lower and middle classes. However, those people can still get quality care with little problem.
When I say "price-gouging," consider the following:
Let Service be a given procedure.
Health care providers that accept Public insureds (on Medicare or Medicaid) are paid $A by the government for Service.
Health care providers that accept Insurer J's insureds are paid $B for Service.
Health care providers that accept Insurer K's insureds are paid $C for Service.
Health care providers that provide Service to uninsured charge $D.
Insurer K is bigger than Insurer J, and can leverage a better price for Service. Therefore, $C < $B.
The government tamps down prices artificially. Therefore, $A < $C.
So, what's the price for Service? Presuming that there is an equal number of all insureds and the uninsured, then it's reasonable to presume that P = (A + B + C + D) / 4. And, since A < C < B < D, the uninsured will always pay above the "actual" price of service.
This is different than your tax scenario; this shows that the health care providers are forced to price-gouge the uninsured. Which inures to the benefit of the health insurance companies.
@Shebakoby said:
The only thing I've heard that's negative about Obamacare from people I know (not stranger outliers) is that it significantly increased the cost of a state offered health insurance plan so that they can no longer afford the premiums.
Obamacare does not address the systematic problems; it rides along with it. The system essentially does three things: (1) forces insurers to carry applicants; (2) coughs up a subsidy payable to insurers on behalf of applicants based on their income; and (3) penalizes people for not being insured. This is mostly a win-situation for insurers.
@Shebakoby said:
Don't American gas prices have a huge chunk of it in tax, too? Maybe not as much as Canada, but still?
Isn't that kind of irrelevant?
In the United States, gas prices are mostly based on federal, state, and local taxes. Those taxes are generally ear-marked for transportation-related projects and funds. The same can be said about cigarettes, with such funds going to public-health projects.
Most people know this, and accept it. Fewer people seem to understand how corrupt, inefficient, and generally-awful the American health care system is. They are afraid of non-existent crises in other countries. They should be afraid of the crises that actually exist in the United States.
@Shebakoby said:
Also which 23 years were you living in Canada? If it was really long ago and in a major Eastern Canadian metropolitan center, I'm not surprised you didn't see bed shortages.
I said the opposite, actually.
I lived actively in the Toronto area from 1979 to 2003. I technically still live in that part of Canada, for I maintain my residence with my parents'.
There are bed shortages in Canada, but that's part of the way the system is calculated to operate.
@Shebakoby said:
I have to wonder where drug companies are making up the difference in order to stay in business. Price controls would certainly put a damper on new drug research in Canada, unless a manufacturer could produce it relatively cheaply to fit under the price control.
They are price-gouging the fuck out of the Americans, that's where. What the drug companies won't tell you is that several of them are heavily-invested in a variety of generic manufacturers. So, the generics aren't really competing against them: they are actually demonstrating how badly American consumers are getting price-gouged.
I do recall one time over a decade ago the governor of Oregon was in town for something, and some reporter asked him about how long health care waiting list times were in Oregon. The man was competely confused. He was like "Waiting list times, what are those even?" He didn't even know such a concept existed.
I didn't know they existed when I lived in Canada for 23 years. I only came upon them when I came to the United States.
The reason is simple: whereas Canadian hospitals have bed shortages, American hospitals usually do not. American hospitals are owned by private companies that are attempting to eat each other's market share. It is in their interests to make sure that their hospitals are not at capacity, and this results in higher costs per patient. In Canada, there's more of an interest in keeping the hospitals at over-capacity for efficiency reasons.
@Misadventure said:
No, actually I was giving the posters a chance to you know, describe there game instead of spending how many posts failing to do so then being insulting.
As I often tell lawyers in depositions, try asking your questions better.
I believe that this is a description-trait-based game with no system. I could be wrong. This is not uncommon for superhero games. It's the primary reason I don't play them.