Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 1) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47244459) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

Absolutely agree with you here, having had a lot of that "happy plate" stuff shoved down my throat (and more literally than you'd think, too). It's hell just to cut my meal size in half, because I'm so used to "eat until sated".

Gets easier as you go, though. What I found worked wonders for me was changing my diet to do a lot more with the wok. Mostly vegetables, with either some seafood or lean meat for the proteins. Not too heavy on the oil, and keeping the meat consumption low. That, and salads, but salads ain't everyone's cup of tea. And if you're gonna drown that salad in dressing to "add some taste" or put stuff like pasta in it, you might as well not bother with salads as I've actually managed to gain weight on salads before I discovered that. ;)

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 1) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47244443) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

I wasn't implying it takes ridiculously low amounts of calories to lose weight, but I have to cut down a lot more than regular people to reach my goals. I'm one of the lucky ones who can do that. I have friends who're trying to lose weight who couldn't cut down like that, and for them it really is hard to lose weight as it goes so slow and comes back so easily. On the other hand, I have a couple of friends who have the opposite "problem": no matter what they eat, they stay skinny. Two of them are seeing a dietician about it, just to help them to stay out of the "severely underweight" weight range. So why do people find it so surprising that for some of us folks it might be the other way around: our metabolism is just too damn good at extracting calories from whatever we consume?

For me it's really simple: pay attention and maintain weight, or cut down to levels others might find unbearable, but which I can tolerate (gets easier after the first couple of days) when I want to lose some. But I always have to be conscious about it; I don't maintain a "normal" weight naturally or by instinct.

As for the rest, I'm not gonna bother answering point by point; let's just say that I'm not, as you seem to be implying, someone who drinks a liter or two of heavily sugared tea every day, then fills his face with chips or candy, and tops it off with 4-6 beers in the evening, every single day. I'm used to taking the good stuff in moderation. Out of necessity, but as a nice side effect, it means that when I drink my occasional beer or tea, I can really enjoy it because it's not something I consume regularly.

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 1) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47235791) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

My normal food intake is already well below 2400 for maintaining my weight, so I'm not reducing it by that much. Other than that, there are some more ingredients going into my meal than just lean chicken breast and rice: there's some olive oil involved, and some sugar, yoghurt and coconut milk for the curries. And while I avoid sugary drinks, my tea does contain both sugar and honey. And I drink the occasional beer or two in the evening.

So obviously I'm getting calories from sources other than my meals. That 120kcal/day figure you calculated is way lower than my real caloric intake during that period, but as I didn't bother calculating my real caloric intake, I have no idea how much it really was. Probably around 800-1000 I guess, from past experience with matching my caloric intake to my weight progression. The point I was trying to make was not that I need to restrict my caloric intake to unrealistic low amounts; it's that when I need to lose weight, I need to make my meals a *lot* smaller if I want to see some results. Regular size meals, but healthier ingredients only help me maintain my weight, not lose it.

Comment: Re: on behalf of america (Score 1) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47235683) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

So plan ahead and measure your food before preparing it. Nobody forces you to sit down at a table and gorge until you feel full.

Hmm, I thought I made it pretty clear that that was more or less my approach, although I don't bother measuring; I can eyeball it pretty well.

Our grandparents didn't have that luxury.

Mine did, as did my parents. Work hard, eat big meals to maintain energy levels.

Besides, You'd be surprised how quickly the human body adapts to a lower food intake, you won't feel hungry for long.

Sorry, doesn't surprise me one bit as it's already known to me. ;)

Oh, and do some exercise. An hour of jogging a day and the weight will fall off. People spend 5+ hours watching TV, take an hour to look after your health dammit.

Exercise may work for some, but does jack shit for me. I only manage to hit the gym 2-3 times a week (usually 2). I don't have time, as in actual *time*, not inclination, to work out more often. Besides, most dieticians and gym teachers will tell you that you can always out-eat your exercise, and that weight loss happens in the kitchen rather than the gym. But I know a guy who got pretty good results by just jogging every day and being more conscious about his food; when my evening class is over (one more year to go), I'm considering starting that too. Not so much for the weight loss as I got that pretty well covered; the increased endurance interests me more, tbh...

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 1) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47235653) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

Just to keep things in perspective, I come from a family of overweight and obese people, and I've put a great deal of effort into developing healthier habits than them to stay healthy.

Same here; my point is that while for some people these habits come naturally, that's not the case for everyone. Yeah, in time I guess it will become second nature too, most days it already is. Junk food has gone from something I used to love, to something I'd rather avoid in favour of a healthier and well-prepared meal. But there are occasions where you still have to consciously keep track of your food intake, such as at barbecues, christmas parties at the family's, birthday parties, ...

Your claim that to lose 22lb in 3 months is absurd unless you truly don't do anything, all day, as that much food would provide you with a mere hundred calories a day and that is no attempt at weight loss, that's trying to starve yourself to death.

Well, probably got quite a few extra calories from the olive oil used to wok the chicken cubes. Most of my food intake during those 3 months was either spicy chicken or homemade curries. Also important perhaps if it wasn't clear already, 125g of rice is dry weight, prior to cooking; it's a simple quick-boil bag for 1-2 portions. And of course there was the occasional regular meal when invited somewhere (once every couple of weeks). I also relaxed a bit toward the end; some weekends I'd have like one large hamburger, or one kebab, just to have something different (when you're losing weight at 100g/day, that one hamburger in the weekend won't upset your schedule much and it breaks the monotonous chicken/rice cycle). And no, I wasn't trying to starve myself to death. In fact, I can survive just fine on such a limited diet, despite working out 2-3 times/week. I was never really hungry during that period, just a mildly grumbling stomach when lunch time approached. But no, I don't do much physical exercise during the day. As I said, on a good day work + commute already amount to 10.5-11 hours/day, time spent in a car or an office chair.

The fact that you'd make such a claim shows you've put literally no effort into finding out how to eat right and be healthy.

Don't jump to conclusions based on limited information. Of course I have; I got fed up with being overweight and out of shape for most of my life, so I decided to do something about it. I've been to a dietician for about a year (mostly so I'd have someone to answer to when I was falling behind on schedule but got some good tips from him too), I've adopted healthier eating habits, I work out when time permits. I never claimed the above diet was in any way healthy... I mean, be serious: no vegetables and no variation whatsoever. I just rolled into it by accident: bad shit happened that affected my appetite for a couple of weeks. Noticing I accidentally rolled into an unplanned weight loss period, I simply decided to keep riding that wave for a couple of months because it was working, and working faster than my regular approach. My normal approach to weight loss is a lot healthier: a diet of salads (no pasta, no or little dressing) combined with veggies and lean meat in the wok for the warm meals, and the occasional fish dish and of course some fruit to top it off. Unfortunately, that takes a bit more work as I need to go shopping more often for the fresh veggies and need to cook every day. When I get home in the evening, I don't always feel like cooking. Besides, what with the gym, my evening class and the one "social" night, I don't get home before 11pm during the week anyway. Yeah, I know, I could do my shopping during the day or on the way home, and get up a little earlier and cook in the morning. Sorry, my days are long enough as-is; right now my main problem is not weight loss, but sleep deprivation.

You sound a lot like my aunt did, before she decided to stop eating fast food and start hitting the gym once a week. She's in her late fifties now, and she's gone from weighing close to 300lbs her entire adult life to weighing under 200 now, all in the last 6-7 years. She took inspiration from my cousins, who took inspiration from my mother, who took it from my father, all of whom have lost a lot of weight since deciding to stop being unhealthy. My parents' exercise consists of walking the beach a few nights a week when the weather is nice enough, and in New England that's not even that often, but it was enough to shed the pounds they've always had.

Nice to know physical exercise works for you and your family; for me I found it does nothing. At least not for weight loss, and that's hitting the gym for 2-4 hours twice a week. Then again, better muscle tone, increased strength and stamina, more energy, feeling fit, that's enough benefit in itself to make it worthwhile, and after a while it does become fun.

Stop making excuses, you're not convincing anyone, I've personally known too many people like you who made excuses all their lives until they decided they were done being unhealthy. Obesity is a new epidemic, not something humans have been grappling with for centuries. If you'd stop making excuses and actually put the effort in and try to put together a balanced diet while cutting out all the crap you usually eat you'd realize obese is not a natural state for anyone.

I'm not making any excuses; I don't need to either; you probably misread me somewhere. I'm taking it slow by choice due to my other priorities not being compatible with the extra time/effort required for weight loss, but I'm getting there. When it fancies me, I lose some weight, and in between those periods I am maintaining it pretty well. I'm just pointing out that for some of us, maintaining a healthy weight is not as simple as some people seem to make it out to be. First of all, not everyone has the same metabolism (I know 3 people who can eat whatever they want, as much as they want, and still struggle to get their weight above the "underweight" category); second, not everyone has the time to cook a decent meal on a daily basis. If you combine that with an upbringing that ruins your "I've had enough" trigger permanently, you can see that what comes natural for some, takes a lot more effort and vigilance for others.

Comment: Re:on behalf of america (Score 4, Insightful) 625

by LordNightwalker (#47230743) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

you're not born that way

Ever seen a newborn? Yes, you *are* born that way. ;)

But I agree with your other points. Although, I must nuance your views a bit. For a health freak who doesn't eat the same stuff as the rest of us and considers that "normal", or someone blessed with a fast metabolism who can hog out on junk food and stay slim, it may be hard to comprehend that for some people it is in fact quite hard to lose weight and keep it off.

The situation is a bit more complex than just saying "put down that fork". For a lot of us overweight and obese people, the basic feedback loop that tells us when we've had enough is broken. And most of the fault there lies with the previous generation, although it's hard to blame them when they didn't know better. They were for the most part hard working labourers raised on big meals, dumping those same big meals onto the plates of their offspring, while simultaneously doing everything in their power and giving us all the opportunities to ensure we would never have to work as hard as they do. Oh, and of course, coming from a situation of scarcity, they would not accept "I've had enough" while there was still food on the plate... So from a young age we're raised on the wrong idea of how big a meal should be and taught to ignore the signals our bodies tell us when we've had enough. Now we're no longer capable of recognising those signals, assuming our bodies still bother sending them at all. We're the ones who have to measure and track to compensate for that broken feedback loop. Even now, after years of being conscious about my food intake, the meals I eat still look rather small to me. Yet they do manage to fill my belly and satisfy me just fine, and I *know* I feel better eating smaller meals rather than those feasts that leave you bloated for hours to come. But I can still not rely on those automatic clues to know when I've had enough like some others do; I'll always have to be conscious about what I eat and how much.

Now, combine previous with the realities of modern life: most of us have a sedentary life, spending the bulk of our days in an office chair. Most food these days is so rich in calories, fat, other junk, and processed to death... Food that's much too rich, combined with way too little time for physical exercise. Again something that may be alien to some; as I understand, commute times in the States are rather short. But here in Europe it's not unheard of to be away for 11 hours a day for work alone. My commute eats a good 2.5 hours out of my day, *on a good day*.

So while I agree with what you say: being overweight is a matter of choice, it's not as simple as most people blessed with better metabolisms pretend it is. We can't simply close our eyes, click our heels together three times and wish ourselves thin. For some of us, it is rather hard. I for one am in that camp: it takes a lot of effort to lose weight, and constant (luckily mild in my case) vigilance to keep it off. To give you an idea, in order to lose 10kg (22lb) over a period of 3 months, one 125g (4.4oz) bag of rice and one chicken breast would be my total food intake over 4 days, for that entire 3 month period. We're measuring daily food intake in tablespoons at that time, and the number is either single digits or "let's count in hex so we can keep it in single digits". Yeah, I work out too. No, it doesn't help. Weight loss happens in the kitchen, not the gym, no matter what people tell you.

It's understandable that some people just consider it too much work for something they don't perceive as a benefit: if you're a good coder, it doesn't matter how fit you are. The increased health and fitness may perhaps improve your brain functions a bit, but at the expense of coding time which builds and maintains your skills. If you're a good coder now , while overweight, it must mean your current strategy is working. Do you really want to risk messing with that? Especially considering that computer time is fun time, while physical exercise is quite hard for an out of shape body and perceived as boring by those more mentally inclined?

Now, back on topic: no, it should absolutely *not* be considered a disability. If you're genuinely overweight or obese due to medical conditions, those medical conditions are your disability, not your obesity.

Comment: Re:Well, fuck. (Score 2) 194

What kind of shitty future did I wake up in where 'unlocking your cellphone' is a "superpower"?

Don't know man, humanity's changing and more and more people are waking up with new and strange powers. Take me, for example... A couple of weeks ago I discovered I have the power to look through solid windows!

Comment: Re:A huge underestimate of people's nature (Score 1) 78

by LordNightwalker (#43666127) Attached to: BitTorrent Bundle Puts a Music Store Inside Torrents

While this may be true for your typical pop artists, it does not hold true for the seasoned artists that release concept album . These are albums where a number of songs are used to tell a story - much like a musical.

Examples of this include Muse The Resistance, Tokyo Jihen Just Can't Help It, and Gotye Making Mirrors. If you ever want to completely lose yourself into music, I recommend seeking these out.

While you're at it, check out some stuff by Shpongle (doesn't tell a story, but the songs have inter-song and intra-song variation and flow into each other nicely so that it's hard to tell where one song ends and the next begins) or Ayreon (space opera, rock opera; can particularly recommend "Into The Electric Castle").

Comment: Re:A huge underestimate of people's nature (Score 1) 78

by LordNightwalker (#43666065) Attached to: BitTorrent Bundle Puts a Music Store Inside Torrents

Underestimating the artists themselves as most don't have more than 2-3 good songs an album anyways.

You mean overestimating, for sure! ;)

but so far the best model I've seen for selling music based off of samples is playing the first 20-30 seconds of the song and then asking if the user wants to buy it.

Probably works quite well for pop music and other styles that settle into "the meat of the thing" during that timeframe. But some of the electronic stuff I listen to is a bit too complex or evolves too slowly to be sampled in a mere 30 seconds, regardless whether it comes from the front, the end or the middle. I'd rather they allowed me to choose between either listening to part of the song in high quality, or the complete song in lower quality. Or even better, like on the radio in the old days: the entire song, with a radio jingle at the beginning and/or end.

And that's allowing for the industry's view that previews should be mutilated in a futile attempt to curb piracy.

Comment: Re:Who wants a driverless tesla roadster? (Score 1) 199

by LordNightwalker (#43665779) Attached to: Tesla's Elon Musk Talks With Google About Self-Driving Cars

If "transport from point A to point B" was the sole use case for automobiles, the only model in existence would be the Ford Fiesta.

Because the soccer mom who needs to drive her kids and their friends to practice, the farmer who needs to pick up a ton of supplies in town and drives on unpaved roads a lot of the time, or the courier who needs to distribute a bunch of parcels are all equally well served with a Ford Fiesta...

Who could possibly have a need for a Volkswagen Touran, Toyota Hilux or Citroën Berlingo other than to better connect to the road and fully experience the joy of driving? These cars are simply *made* for pleasure!

Comment: Re:most likely in case of jamming (Score 4, Interesting) 84

by LordNightwalker (#43434311) Attached to: DARPA Develops Non-GPS Navigation Chip

if you go into a tunnel, you will come out and get the signal again. and its not like you need to navitage inside a tunnel.

Not all tunnels have only one entry and exit point. I already missed an exit in the tunnels under Brussels on a couple of occasions. And even if all tunnels were simple one-pipe affairs... What if you need to make a turn shortly after the tunnel, and your GPS takes too long to get a fix so it still has you at the tunnel's entrance when you blissfully sail past your turn?

I'm not saying we couldn't cope without these improvements, as indeed in the past we managed to do just fine without GPS. But there's room for useful improvement nonetheless.

Comment: Re:Why no CEO convictions then? (Score 1) 332

by LordNightwalker (#43420445) Attached to: IRS Can Read Your Email Without Warrant

Oh, but they aren't -- because those people own the government. Because those people are "too big to fail". Because those people have friends in high places and lots of lawyers to defend them. They aren't easy targets, even though they are big targets.

As amusing as that little stark raving mad streetcorner lunatic act was, I believe it has more to do with big companies running their own mail servers instead of relying on third-party providers. It's easy for the IRS to request emails from an ISP since it's not in the ISP's interest to antagonize them by protecting a $50/mo customer's privacy. It's quite different if the company you're sending an email access request to is the very same company you're investigating.

Don't want the IRS to read your mails? Do as I did for years: run your own IMAP server at home and have all your mails forwarded to it. I did it for technical reasons, but it's equally applicable to this situation. Of course, that only works for as long as they don't decide they should also have access to mails in transit. I'd suggest using encryption, but good luck getting all your contacts to adopt it...

The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

Working...