Y2HH

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) it really just depends on what your goals are. but if you want to drop 20, 25 pounds. I can all but guarantee you that after 90 days of P90X you'll accomplish that. If you're willing to put in a little effort and eat better, it's totally attainable. Running is great, but it wont get you the results near as quickly, and wont help all the other aspects of your fitness that P90X does. If you're interested enough to do some more research on it, PM me and I can direct you to some good stuff. I'll even put aside our political differences. that's how much I believe in this thing. How liberal of you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) So this p90x thing....is it worth it? I'm 6' 235lbs and need to drop some weight (200-210 would be ideal). I was running more at the end of last year to prepare for a 5k in November (completed) but my wife is now pregnant and I guess in sympathy (more likely laziness) i've gained some weight. My diet routine needs to change and can change pretty easily, but I'm wondering if running 3-4 miles every other day is enough or if I should start a program like p90x. I'm not looking for some massive weight loss in 2 weeks. But I know myself and if I'm not seeing results pretty quickly I lose my interest/drive to continue on. It's worth it if it's what gets you motivated/exercising. If there is something else you enjoy, such as weight training, do that...it doesn't matter what it is you do, so long as you do SOMETHING. The biggest issue I have with P90X is that it's done in your home...which is designed to be a place of comfort and laziness. It also depends on your goals. If you want to tone up and slim down, P90X is amazing. IMO, if you want to bulk up and add muscle mass...it's not. I've done P90X, and my personal opinion of it is that it's an EXCEPTIONAL cardiovascular/core workout, but I personally prefer weight training/muscle building in the gym. My focus is just there when I'm at a gym versus at home...where it's somewhat "forced". Edit: And running 3-4 miles every other day should be plenty of exercise to drop weight, without a doubt...unless you're just negating the workout by eating so terribly bad that it doesn't matter...

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) I agree with pretty much all of this...the one thing I'll say about working two major muscle groups on the same day is that if you work them simultaneously, as in one set with one group followed immediately by one set with the other group, I think you can address the issue of having deficient resources and shortchanging yourself on the second muscle group. As for genetics, I agree they are a major factor. My body type is such that it would be VERY difficult for me to ever add a lot of bulk. My bone structure/body type is such that it is relatively easy for me to achieve a lean muscular build by working out. To really add muscle in my upper body would require much more effort than some other body types that are more predisposed to carrying more muscle on their skeletal structure. You can see it in the P90X videos, too. Some of the guys in the videos struggle to get through the shoulders and arms routine with the same weights as I am using, and yet they are much more built in their upper body than I am. So despite the fact that they aren't working any harder than I am, or possibly are even working less than me, they still are seeing more bulk on their upper body. Conversely, some people will find it difficult to eliminate any excess fat around their midsection, regardless of how hard they put themselves through the cardio routines. I, on the other hand, can fairly easily tone my core and see muscle definition there without doing any ab work. It just all depends on your particular physiology. After working out in the gym randomly, and then after doing P90X and most of P90X2 (I had to take a break for my trip back to Chicago), I have some basic observations that are probably pretty good rules of thumb, although there will always be exceptions. 1) If you workout fairly strenuously 3 times a week on average, you will maintain a pretty solid level of fitness. 2) If you couple that with a reasonably good nutrition plan, i.e., your intake of processed and/or fast and junk foods is low to moderate, your intake of alcohol is moderate, you will maintain a fairly high level of fitness. 3) I don't worry about treating myself to a meal high in fat once in awhile as long as it is natural. My philosophy is natural foods in moderation, even if they are high in fat or calories, aren't going to hurt you, as long as you are active. I do try and stay away from processed crap. If you follow this basic plan, things tend to fall into place. My experience with super-strict diets and insane workout regimens is that they are almost impossible to maintain, so unless they are being done for a specific reason (you want to look good for your wedding, for example), I think they're pointless. I'd much rather do something I believe I can maintain over the long haul, as a lifestyle, rather than kill myself for 2-3 months only for the results to fade away somewhat quickly. I agree with this, especially the final paragraph, which I set in bold so people take notice of it. I think the biggest mistake people make when they "suddenly decide to get into shape" is that they tend to jump into the deep end of the pool instead of wading slowly through the shallows, making it a part of their lifestyle versus the drastic change they commonly make instead. Crash diets, crash workouts, none of it works long term. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to keep up such a workout, you will eventually get sick of it, or injure yourself, etc...take it slow, take it in moderation. The gains will come, but they take time.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 20, 2012 -> 09:14 AM) Here's the thing though. You can follow that routine all you like, and only see minimal change, unless you adhere to a strict nutrition plan. you need protein. And lots and lots of it. a good ratio to start with is something like 30% Protein 50% Carb 20% Fat. And based on your height/weight, and if you DO stick to the workout plan and do it 5-6 times a week, you should be ingesting something close to 3000 calories a day if you want to bulk up. THIS is the most important part of gaining muscle. You can work out all you want, but if your body doesn't have the proper fuel, you're not actually accomplishing anything. Absolutely, and it's hard to give people diet advice without knowing their genetics, etc...if he naturally burns 3000 calories a day without working out, that means he needs even more if he is working out. This is always the hardest part about building a proper diet for a person, the diet is and will be different for every individual.

QUOTE (KG#1 @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) I am starting a "Get Fit" program at work with a few co-workers. Really, I'm not needing to lose weight, AT ALL. I'm actually doing this to gain muscle. I am looking for an awesome routine in order to pack on some muscle. I have a membership at Anytime Fitness, which is great . . . Anyone know a good routine that they've done in order to actually see results when lifting weights? This is a pretty hard question to answer... Regardless of what some fitness guru that wants to make money may tell you, when it comes to packing on muscle, it's can be very difficult OR very easy, depending on your natural body type/genetics. Also keep in mind proper diet plays a role. That said, what worked best for me, and for real world reasons that I actually self-tested over a 10 year span (yes, TEN years), is a 5 day split where only 1 major body part is worked per day/per workout. Any/all secondary/assist muscles will not be worked the day before/the day after that major. This gives all majors/minors at least 48 hours to rest/rebuild before being targeted again. The reason for this is that when you target that days major muscle, all of the muscle groups used to perform that particular workout will be 100% rested and ready. Example of major and assist/minor = Chest routines target your chest (major), while your triceps (back 2/3rds of upper arm) and the anterior deltoid (front shoulder muscle) are the minor muscles/assist muscles for that movement. So my breakdown is as follows: Monday : Chest/Abs (minor/assist = tripcep/anterior deltoid) Tuesday : Back (minor/assist = bicep/posterior deltoid) Wednesday : Legs (No cardio on leg day, ever) (no assist) Thursday : Shoulders (minor/assist = arms/various upper back) Friday : Off Day or Cardio Saturday : Arms (minor/assist = shoulders/upper abs/various upper back) Sunday : Off Day or Cardio This split will target and work every major muscle group in your body with 100% efficiency and intensity because none of the muscles used in this split will be tired from a prior workout. People often pretend this doesn't matter and insist on working every muscle at least two times per week...but IMO they are mistaken. For example, if you work chest/arms on the same day, whichever you work first will effect the intensity of whatever you work second because that same muscle was already used during your first routine. This is science, not magic. It takes upwards of 48 hours for a given muscle group to fully recover from a workout. Chest/Back is a feasible 1 day split, HOWEVER, the reason I do not like working 2 majors on the same day is because your body only has so many resources it can expend in a given day...your system is only capable of so much, so if you overdo it, it's inefficient at recovery. I consider this common sense. You wouldn't perform a massive leg workout the day before you plan on running or racing...you're legs would be fatigued before you begin. This same logic is the reason why I'm a believer in this particular split. Instead of doing cardio on Friday/Sunday, you can do it any day other than leg day, which merely extends your time in the gym...BUT, never do intense or long cardio first. Aside from a quick 5-10 minute low-intensity cardio warmup before a workout, do not do your full cardio routine, as all this does is burn fuel, and your intensity level will be lower when hitting the weights. That's not our goal here, since you asked about packing on muscle. If you don't like this split, any other split, and/or your genetic disposition is that of the skinny guy that can eat 50 big macs per day and never gain an ounce of fat, the answer is steroids.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Either way it's a stark refutation of the idea of Obama being some sort of big-government socialist commie, especially when paired with government employment numbers. He's spending a lot because he has too...but that said, the question has long been, who will stop the spending? So far, 1 president did for a very short period of time (Clinton), without paying down debt, I might add...and that's pretty much that. Also, Presidents "control" spending, they don't do the actual spending...congress/senate does that...the President just has to allow it by signing the budget or spending, etc... Our debt level is at a tipping point now...and nobody seems to give a s***, be they democrat or republican...and that's the issue.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2012 -> 09:34 AM) Congress spends, not presidents.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/36ivew/ Sums it up for me. While it sucks what's happening over there, just like with Saddam, it's none of our f***ing business. Let someone else get involved for a change.

Meh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) Wait, you're the one complaining about us adopting the derisive shorthand? Yes. The "Obamacare" thing just a pet peeve of mine, feel free ignore me like you usually do. I just hate when people call it that...I know it makes no sense that it should annoy me as much as it does, but it does. I try to be fair, whether talking about GW, Obama, or whomever...and I think blaming or crediting Obama for anything in the ACA is ridiculous. The bill he asked for is nothing remotely close to what he got. It wasn't written by him, or for him. What he saw in it were some really good points that could fix some GLARING holes in the system, so he signed it. The rest of the crap that's still to come...who knows what it means, or even says...I tried reading it...it's all typical lawyer double talk. I'm sure we will start seeing an onslaught of crazy provider/patient/hospital lawsuits in the future, considering it's near impossible to write a bill/law that's 2000+ pages that isn't full of contradictions...and I'm sure some slimy lawyers will try to profit off of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 15, 2012 -> 03:27 PM) I particularly like your last, bolded part there. The funny thing is, some of the true liberals like Kucinich have said before they want balanced budgets, but they want to balance it in a way that includes raising taxes. Republicans want to balance by cutting government. However, the Republicans don't actually make any real cuts, even when given the chance. And they make things worse by cutting taxes, which is absurd when the government is running such huge deficits. The liberals, on the other hand, can't raise taxes because it isn't politically viable. If raising taxes balances the budget, and they stick with that budget, I'd have no problems with it. But the fact is, they won't stick to that budget...and we already know that. I'm against raising taxes, as I believe the taxes we currently pay are already insanely into the double-triple-quadruple dip territory (federal, state, township, county, sales, property, gas, water, soda, gas, entertainment, blah, blah, blah), it's not for the same reason Republicans are against it. My issue with them raising taxes is that I already know -- because they've shown it over years and years and years -- if you give them more...they'll simply spend more. Sure, they'll blame low taxes on the fact they don't have enough revenue right now...but even if they did have enough revenue...they'd still be running massive deficits. We do it backwards...it's counter to the way the system was set up to begin with... In bad times, the government is supposed to do exactly what it's doing now (and has been doing). In good times, the government is supposed to do the opposite of that, tighten down spending, and PAY OFF DEBT. Clinton gets credited for balancing the budget and creating a surplus...but the problem is, he never paid down a dime of debt with that surplus...and it vanished the second he left office.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2012 -> 07:01 AM) The cost of PPACA has gone down, not up. http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/...s-gone-down-not From the CBO: I'm sure the Washington Examiner will be publishing a follow-up piece to keep with their high journalistic standards. As compared to motherjones.com? Not that I'm defending the Washington Examiner...having never bothered to read it. But I'm sure if you take all of this this into account while subtracting the initial projections, and assuming so-and-so happens when you add this-and-that, and then divide the multiplier of Pi by the negative coefficient of the positive prime integer while subtracting the sum, the CBO will show that we actually saved money, and somehow wiped 14 trillion of debt off the books, too. Oh, and nearly every one of these articles, and the links to other articles that back their interpretation of the fuzzy math within, calls it Obamacare...which immediately invalidates them. It's not f***ing Obamacare. People that call it that, regardless of which of the two "team fails" they play for, are simply idiots. Oh, and by team fails, I mean Republicans or Democrats.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 15, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Um, the federal budget has not changed on the order of $50B to $3T, or even close to that. And in fact, I think looking at percentages is one good way to analyze it (but not the only one). Yes, adding $100B is different now than in the 90's. But it isn't 1,000 times different. And if you properly adjust for inflation, it is a pretty solid measure. I don't think anyone is saying that Obama (or really any of these guys) is particularly good at cutting government spending. What it does say in those numbers though, is that the narrative that Dem Presidents tend to spend a lot more than GOP Presidents is basically false. But here is the kicker... what that graph really DOES say, that I've said before, is that you reallu have to look at Congress a lot more than the President to see who spends more or less, and taxes more or less. We disagree. I think using percentages in this manner skews the actual numbers...and makes really large leaps look small in comparison. We agree, however, that congress is responsible, not the President(s). Another reason that graph is useless. In the 80's, average budgets were around 666 billion. Today, they are around 3.7 trillion. Tacking 200 billion onto 666 billion would result in a higher % than tacking on 200 billion to 3.7 trillion is my point, even when inflation adjusted. It's a common and easy way to play with numbers...they use it in the stock market all the time. While the word trillion has been totally watered down the last few years, that's a HUGE change in spending, and I'm not blaming Obama or the current administration any more or less than the previous one(s). Our budgets are growing massively, and they all promise to stop the bleeding...only to make it even worse than the guy/gal before them. They'll talk about tax loopholes, tax reform, and whatever else...and none of it happens. Also, let me add that it's ok to spend 5 trillion dollars when you take in 5 trillion dollars. It's not the numbers that bother me when it comes to budgets, it's how they simply ignore the word budget and spend whatever they want anyway.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 15, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) Using percentages when it comes to this is sneaky and underhanded, even when inflation adjusted. For example, when you have a budget of 50 billion and spend more than that, the % will be way higher based on the smaller numbers, than say...Obama tacking on a few hundred billion to a trillion. A nicer example: If you have 10$, and spend 20$, you just raise the deficit by 100%. But if you have 1 trillion and spend 1.1 trillion, you raised it by only 10%. BUUUUUT, 100 billion dollars is a LOT more than 10 dollars...even if you adjust for 30 years of inflation. Bad.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) Maybe these other guys. Hairy roast beef is a no go for me. Besides I don't attempt to get my nutrition from anything pink. Eating an awesome tasting steak isn't about nutrition... Nor is eating something pink.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 05:46 PM) i've not had a single chicken nugget since seeing that and i probably never will again. so gross. Not that I eat fast food or processed food very often, but that photo doesn't bother me at all. I'd be more concerned if it was something I ate on a daily basis, however. Edit: It doesn't deter me from eating future Chicken Nuggets, for example. Half of you have probably gone down on girls worse than that pic...but I'm guessing that didn't stop you. Pigs.

QUOTE (SnB @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) Mine was crashing several times daily over the past couple months. That's when I finally made the switch to chrome. You probably had some sort of corrupt data in your browser cache, or were running a buggy addon. I work with FF daily and I couldn't tell you the last time I suffered any sort of crash, from it, or any other browser for that matter...and I'm a person that commonly has upwards of 10 tabs running. I use FF10.0.2 with Greasemonkey, NoScript, Adblock+, and MS .NET Framework addons on top of it...without a problem.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) That paragraph is ridiculous on many levels, mostly the final sentence which shows red meat had no health benefits over anything else whatsoever. It's the incredibly strict diet. The health benefit of red meat is it tastes yummy if cooked and seasoned properly. :9 That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, and that calms my nerves...which soothes my soul...all of which has to have some sort of mental or physical benefit.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) I only use Firefox, or the shameful Internet Explorer, when I'm testing code. Firefox is such a memory hog. It is, but so are all of them...if you compare it to Chrome, it's using just about the same amount of memory, only Chrome splits it into small chunks. You'll get like Chrome.exe = 100 megs, Chrome Renderer = 150 megs, Chrome Worker = 75 megs, etc...which is nice, I love the split processing and I know FF plans on moving that direction...but when it comes to memory, they're all kinda meh. That said, memory isn't at the premium it once was, especially with 64 bit processors/operating systems. I have 16 gigs of memory in my home computer, for example...so if a browser wants to use a few, I don't care. Internet Explorer is bad because they did with it what Microsoft does with everything. Care about it, get a commanding lead with it, then sit on it and let it rot. See Windows Mobile for further reference. Microsoft had 98% of the smartphone market before Apple decided to reinvent said market...Google caught on fast, while Microsoft did what it always does...let their current crappy rot while telling everyone it's just as good as IOS/Android, and then finally come to grips with the fact that it sucks two years later...then scramble to catch up again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) I don't know. A 20 year study of 110,000 adults seems pretty convincing (referring to the article Steve posted). Here is my own "science". I had a friend peer review this "science", so it's now fact. Oh, it's also called common sense. Red meat is bad for you IF consumed in too high of a quantity (note: moderation rears it's ugly head again) ...just like breathing is probably bad for you, unless you live in the middle of no-where, far outside of a City, unless you find a way to moderate how much you have to breathe. Where you like to murder helpless plants, trees, and other totally harmless life, I prefer to kill only things that can defend themselves, which can look me in the eye. So unless you start eating a bunch of Venus fly traps, or other flesh eating plants, you're nothing more than a two-bit murderous thug that picks on helpless life that can't defend itself, nor see you coming.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Ha, perfect and accurate. How is it perfect or accurate? Firefox doesn't crash any more than Chrome, and I use both personally and professionally, not to mention extensively.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 11, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) Maybe this will give Obama the cover he needs (just like the famous incident in Somalia depicted in Black Hawk Down) to get the heck out of Dodge. Obviously, it's reprehensible what happened, but continuing this war through 2013 or 2014 just serves no purpose and continues to drain the Treasury. About the only positive is that having some of our troops deployed there has to remind SOME of the war-mongers not to jump into yet another idiotic war with Iran. Of course, despite the Obama administration taking out bin Laden on his watch, they'll instantly be declared "quitters" or "weak on foreign policy" if we withdraw, which will be infuriating. The cover he needs to to get the heck out of Dodge? Part of our current withdraw from Iraq was in moving more soldiers BACK into Afghanistan. The sooner you stop pretending this is still Bush's war the better. It's nearly 4 years later now.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Mar 11, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) Nah the 9 percent was from last month, it was just the last time I measured it. And I work at a health club so we have a fancy little body fat machine. If it's one of those that you hold in your hands out in front of you, they work like crap. I had those reading me down to 4%...in reality it was 8-9% at the time.

I'd say about 200k tax free...or not worth it to me. Or are we talking about walking away forever and not getting a new job? The above number is if I could walk away but go back to work for a different company. The only debt I have is my mortgage, but I'd need the 200k to sustain myself for a while...then go back to work in a year or so. Otherwise it would take multiple millions...also tax free.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 07:59 AM) see, we can agree every once in a blue moon. Forget it, I decided you are wrong. They don't care if we die at 51...you said 50...making you wrong.