yadmonkey
Mar 31, 01:48 PM
This was posted prematurely by a day, right?
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 09:06 PM
Spec bump?
32 and 64?
Snowball's hope in hell...
32 and 64?
Snowball's hope in hell...
appleguru1
Oct 24, 09:29 AM
Ordered the high end 15" er w/ a glossy screen :D
Finally!
Finally!
damixt
Mar 15, 09:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
Cerritos has none today
Cerritos has none today
hayesk
Jul 26, 04:02 PM
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
bartszyszka
Apr 13, 02:25 PM
It would be interesting if they provided the parts to other manufacturers for "comes with Apple tv" TVs. The only time they've done something like that though is the Motorola ROKR with iTunes built in and that didn't work out very well at all.
I can't imagine them selling an Apple-branded TV unless they decide to integrate Apple TVs into the cinema displays? But it seems like most people are buying 40-60" TVs these days and Apple only sells 27" displays now.
I can't imagine them selling an Apple-branded TV unless they decide to integrate Apple TVs into the cinema displays? But it seems like most people are buying 40-60" TVs these days and Apple only sells 27" displays now.
dXTC
Dec 29, 03:08 PM
Ok, this thread is getting weird. Seriously, the BBW fetish thing grosses me out.
...
That moon girl has nothing about her face that's cute.
It's okay to have that opinion; I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. Admittedly, the freckles do nothing for me either.
My preference may be somewhat marginal, but it's a preference nonetheless. Now, if I got aroused by a vat of Crisco, that would be a fetish.
The feederism thing is definitely a fetish, and that turns me off too. Someone sent me a Jerry Springer clip of a BBW in a wading pool filled with whipped cream and chocolate syrup. It didn't excite me in the least. All I could think was, "Why did she allow herself to stoop that low?"
What is "FA"?
In this lady's case it is not just fat, she has an actual goal to make it to total immobility. FFS, I'm huge but I walk and can even jog quite a distance just fine.
FA stands for Fat Admirer. It's a euphemism for a man who prefers fat women as romantic partners. We used to be called "chubby chasers", but that phrase has been adopted by the gay community to refer to gay men who like large men.
As I stated above, this woman doesn't really want to get to the point of immobility, as she stated in a later interview; the "goal" was more or less just a fantasy she had expressed, mostly for the benefit of her FA fans and site subscribers. The whole thing was little more than a bit of self-publicity.
...
That moon girl has nothing about her face that's cute.
It's okay to have that opinion; I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. Admittedly, the freckles do nothing for me either.
My preference may be somewhat marginal, but it's a preference nonetheless. Now, if I got aroused by a vat of Crisco, that would be a fetish.
The feederism thing is definitely a fetish, and that turns me off too. Someone sent me a Jerry Springer clip of a BBW in a wading pool filled with whipped cream and chocolate syrup. It didn't excite me in the least. All I could think was, "Why did she allow herself to stoop that low?"
What is "FA"?
In this lady's case it is not just fat, she has an actual goal to make it to total immobility. FFS, I'm huge but I walk and can even jog quite a distance just fine.
FA stands for Fat Admirer. It's a euphemism for a man who prefers fat women as romantic partners. We used to be called "chubby chasers", but that phrase has been adopted by the gay community to refer to gay men who like large men.
As I stated above, this woman doesn't really want to get to the point of immobility, as she stated in a later interview; the "goal" was more or less just a fantasy she had expressed, mostly for the benefit of her FA fans and site subscribers. The whole thing was little more than a bit of self-publicity.
ariechel
Jul 29, 11:35 AM
My only fear: M$oft and the music companies are going to sign deals and this is what could hit Apple very bad... Major labels do not care where the music is bought... Apple... M$oft... the money goes into their pocket... So Apple need to have an idea to keep the Ipod owners their side.... The fact that Apple is proprietary is not a factor...
I think the music companies are at least a little worried about Apple's dominance of the music download and mp3 player markets, particularly after Apple strongarmed them into continuing the single 99 cent price scheme under iTunes.
It would not be unreasonable for them to provide preferential treatment to competitors in order to break the quasi-monopoly Apple has in this area and thus provide themselves with more leverage in price negotiations. Whether they will be willing to throw in their lot with MS, on the other hand, is somewhat questionable.
I think the music companies are at least a little worried about Apple's dominance of the music download and mp3 player markets, particularly after Apple strongarmed them into continuing the single 99 cent price scheme under iTunes.
It would not be unreasonable for them to provide preferential treatment to competitors in order to break the quasi-monopoly Apple has in this area and thus provide themselves with more leverage in price negotiations. Whether they will be willing to throw in their lot with MS, on the other hand, is somewhat questionable.
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 12:53 PM
I agree with the animation glitches. For the 5 minutes I've had it on my iPhone (Did a restore, instead of upgrade), haven't noticed animation glitches like I did with 4.3 and 4.3.1, so I would say that it's a safe bet to upgrade it. Everything seems to be a lot more fluid this time around. Hope that helps. Enjoy!
Can you open a third party app (like a game or news app) that isn't already running in the background and let us know if the launch animation runs or whether it still just "pops" on screen like in 4.3 and 4.3.1 ...
Can you open a third party app (like a game or news app) that isn't already running in the background and let us know if the launch animation runs or whether it still just "pops" on screen like in 4.3 and 4.3.1 ...
bigjnyc
Apr 12, 10:43 AM
I'm starting to think this rumor may be true. And its actually not a bad thing, My iPhone 4 is working great right now, it's plenty fast and looks awesome. Waiting a couple more months wouldnt be a bad thing. I usually wait a month after new releases anyway for demands and lines to die down.
Dont Hurt Me
Oct 24, 08:09 AM
Apples moving forward, kind of neat after all the years of stagnation. 2 Big updates in 1 year vs a minor hiccup after 1 year. This is good stuff.
seanpholman
Mar 15, 10:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
How do you know? I don't want to waste a trip.
--Sean
Apparently South Coast Plaza is selling none today
Still waiting here at Fashion Island - crossing fingers!
How do you know? I don't want to waste a trip.
--Sean
ChrisA
Jul 11, 03:02 PM
[The Microsoft music player could be a huge success if Microsoft wants it to be. MS could offer them at such a low price they they would sell fast. Of course MS would loose a pile of money on each unit but why would they care if the goal is to run the competition out of bussenis. A $50 player with 10 GB of space would pretty much kill the iPod.
Don't panic
Apr 27, 08:16 PM
status
eldiablo 4 (moyank, chrisjenkins, aggie, jav)
nies 2 (dontpanic, appleguy)
aggie 2 (eldiablo, ucfgrad)
yet to vote: nies, ibro
eldiablo 4 (moyank, chrisjenkins, aggie, jav)
nies 2 (dontpanic, appleguy)
aggie 2 (eldiablo, ucfgrad)
yet to vote: nies, ibro
rdlink
Apr 22, 08:59 PM
So what?
No one will deny the success Apple has, yet its not good enough for this greedy CEO and company.
They are just out of control. Pure unadulterated gluttony.
Dude, you're just all over the place here. Your unmitigated hatred for a company has you flipping back and forth, and arguing against those who agree with you.
First of all, I think it's hilarious in and of itself that earlier in this forum you went on about how you'd rather be seen with your Galaxy S in public, because you don't want anyone to think you're a douche. Screw what other people think. If you care what others think you're just as bad as them.
But even funnier, you then come back in a later post and say that your self image is not tied to your phone. Seems completely contradictory to me. On the one hand, your are embarrassed to be seen with your iPhone. On the other, your self image is not affected by your phone. Hmmm.
Another interesting tidbit. On an earlier post you mention "this town" as NYC. Then later in another post you talk about "here" in LA and Orange County. I know you're located in the "Western Hemisphere", but you sure get around.
You're outed. You're a troll.
No one will deny the success Apple has, yet its not good enough for this greedy CEO and company.
They are just out of control. Pure unadulterated gluttony.
Dude, you're just all over the place here. Your unmitigated hatred for a company has you flipping back and forth, and arguing against those who agree with you.
First of all, I think it's hilarious in and of itself that earlier in this forum you went on about how you'd rather be seen with your Galaxy S in public, because you don't want anyone to think you're a douche. Screw what other people think. If you care what others think you're just as bad as them.
But even funnier, you then come back in a later post and say that your self image is not tied to your phone. Seems completely contradictory to me. On the one hand, your are embarrassed to be seen with your iPhone. On the other, your self image is not affected by your phone. Hmmm.
Another interesting tidbit. On an earlier post you mention "this town" as NYC. Then later in another post you talk about "here" in LA and Orange County. I know you're located in the "Western Hemisphere", but you sure get around.
You're outed. You're a troll.
RawBert
Feb 11, 10:42 AM
NickZac, you my friend are awesome! If you're ever in North Hollywood, I have a briefcase.;)
Charlie Sheen parties too much though. Too much of that stuff can mess you up bad. Just gotta keep it below 3 grams per night and one night per week. It's not fun anymore when you wind up in the hospital.
Charlie Sheen parties too much though. Too much of that stuff can mess you up bad. Just gotta keep it below 3 grams per night and one night per week. It's not fun anymore when you wind up in the hospital.
GQB
Apr 22, 07:50 PM
My favorite iPhone design was the first one. Bring back the aluminum and rounded sides. It's not comfortable to hold this iPhone 4 brick!
It's just a matter of what you're used to. I love my IP4, and my wife's 3GS feels clunky to me. Cognitive dissonance says you'll end up defending whatever you have and resist changes. Just human nature, not good/bad design.
It's just a matter of what you're used to. I love my IP4, and my wife's 3GS feels clunky to me. Cognitive dissonance says you'll end up defending whatever you have and resist changes. Just human nature, not good/bad design.
andrewsd
Apr 22, 09:48 AM
That's completely fine with me. LTE speeds aren't really LTE speeds anyway. Even Verizon which does have the fastest LTE falls short of at least 50% of the actual LTE speeds. It's all false advertising anyway :)
SeanZy
Mar 15, 10:10 AM
Just got here to Brea an there's about 20 or so in line. Hopefully we can get some update on inventory levels. They didn't sell any yesterday but I don't know if that's because they didn't get any or chose to hold them for today.
Good luck everyone!
I am also in line at brea. About 11th in line... Using the white one I already got haha. Waiting for a friend
Good luck everyone!
I am also in line at brea. About 11th in line... Using the white one I already got haha. Waiting for a friend
rxse7en
Jul 28, 10:24 AM
There is no incentive to go to a Zune. Same DRM, same features. THe people who hate the iPod and buy Creative aren't switching to Zune. They don't want to be locked into DRM. So unless microsoft really does something innovative it is just another player in a sea of non-iPods.
That's a good point. I think people are happy with what's available to them and I'm not so sure that an all-encompassing portable media device is ncessary. I've had 4g ipod for a couple of years now. Use it at the gym and when mowing the lawn. I don't think I'm the typical iPod user, but how much portable entertainment is too much? I always thought Walkmen and iPods were a little antisocial, people tend to shut themselves in. I think MS would be better off creating the next media paradigm.
B
That's a good point. I think people are happy with what's available to them and I'm not so sure that an all-encompassing portable media device is ncessary. I've had 4g ipod for a couple of years now. Use it at the gym and when mowing the lawn. I don't think I'm the typical iPod user, but how much portable entertainment is too much? I always thought Walkmen and iPods were a little antisocial, people tend to shut themselves in. I think MS would be better off creating the next media paradigm.
B
Krafty
Sep 14, 12:36 AM
Some good ass korean food
http://lulzimg.com/i4/fd88ac38.jpg
http://lulzimg.com/i4/ae689c25.jpg
http://lulzimg.com/i4/fd88ac38.jpg
http://lulzimg.com/i4/ae689c25.jpg
countach
Oct 24, 09:16 AM
In Australia, I'm getting the 15-inch with 2GB, 2.33GHz, 160GB HD, shipping on/before 1 Nov, arriving to Brisbane on/before 8 Nov. I couldn't justify spending an extra $A818.40 (edu price) for an extra GB of RAM nor an extra $A140.80 for the 200GB HD. Reviews of the 200GB HD at tomshardware.com say performance is very average, and I would have felt about queasy about such bleeding-edge HD technology.
I agree about the memory, but IMHO the 200GB is a no brainer. But then I like all my multimedia, you can't have too much space.
I agree about the memory, but IMHO the 200GB is a no brainer. But then I like all my multimedia, you can't have too much space.
FX4568
Apr 17, 06:55 PM
According to CNET, the new Air will be released around June with a Sandy Bridge ULV Core i5 2537M chip 1.4 GHz that can turbo to 2.3 GHz.
So for .17 GHz upgrade we are sacrificing around 30% graphic power?
So for .17 GHz upgrade we are sacrificing around 30% graphic power?
No comments:
Post a Comment