by: user-inactivated

badged by
recent badges

In the final panel of that, in the background of the street scene, they have the Led Zeppelin icons as a sign. I dig that. That was a cool comic also! Learned a lot.

user-inactivated  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: How have you lost weight?

Weight loss has very little to do with exercise and way more to do with diet despite common conception.

If you run three miles in 30 minutes (10 min/mile, not fast, just jogging), you will burn 540 calories. Running at 220 sucks balls, but you can do it at least once. The real problem is getting out there every time and keeping consistent.

540 calories four times a week (let's say you're really motivated) is 2160 calories. That's literally not even a pound lost since a pound of fat is 3500 calories. Sure, there are added benefits to exercise which are not weight loss like better cardiovascular health and improved muscle, but you want to lose weight.

So what you need to do is track your calories to stay at a set deficit. If you choose a 500 cal/day deficit, you will lose 3500 calories per week, safely. You don't even have to exercise, you just have to put down the McDonald's (I love McDonald's and fries, they're just a lot of calories). Get one of the calorie tracker apps that have already been suggested here.

Here's the most important part: YOU WILL FAIL. You must not let that stop you. Don't avoid logging your calories just because you drank 12 beers and ate a whole pizza. Bouncing back is the most important part of this.

You want to be 180? It's very simple, calories in - calories burned = calorie surplus/deficit. When there's a surplus, you gain weight. When there's a deficit, you lose weight. If anyone tells you anything that differs from this, they are trying to break the laws of thermodynamics. There are a jillion websites out there that will lie to you and convince you that this is something you can cheat. There isn't. The only thing diet pills do is jack up your heart rate to make you burn more calories. It's unsafe and the opposite of the right way to do it.

All that being said, working out sucks, but if you want to get a sexy body like in the magazine you can't just lose weight. You have to lift. Cardio is good for the heart/lungs and endurance, but weight lifting is how you develop your arms and chest and ass. Abs don't happen until you are really low body fat, so don't even worry about that. I don't know how tall you are but if you're shooting for 180 and you're 6', your abs won't happen until you're 170 unless you're just blessed. I jacked up my back and legs in the Air Force so it's a terrible ordeal for me to run anymore, but I can still lift. I used to not lift and I wish I would have started a long time ago. And to be clear, I'm not a jacked roid fueled muscle beast.

I do the PHUL plan (google it). It's awesome, straightforward, and does exactly what I want it to. It's not caught up in buzzwords and marketing (muscle confusion LOL). Everyone at my gym is super nice, and it's the time of year when a lot of new people are there (resolutions and summer coming up). You missed it this year, but to give you an idea of what current gym atmosphere is like, January 2nd is Support a Newbie Day. Honestly, I can't think of a bigger compliment I could get at the gym than if someone saw me working out and asked me to help them with their form or how to use a machine etc. Fuck getting my number, tell me you notice that the bar touches my chest when I bench unlike Half-Rep Harry next to me who puts up twice the weight.

Anyway, eat lighter and you will become less heavy. Lift heavy and you will be enlightened.

If you have any questions and don't want to ask them in a reply, just PM me.

user-inactivated  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: 1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight

So here's a fun story from the annals of the Cold War.

I flew with a lot of C-130 guys in the Air Force. Some of these pilots were getting old and were even pilots in the 80s when Mother Russia was one serious incident away from turning our country into a fiery mushroom farm. In particular I was astonished to learn that C-130s, which are propeller driven and generally considered slow in comparison to a B-52 for instance, were completely capable of dropping nuclear ordinance, but not capable of a speedy enough departure to outrun the blast effects. This was a last resort scenario, and these were considered 100% loss scenarios for the crew.

But imagine this, a C-130 with four parachute-deployed nuclear weapons inside the cargo area. As you approach the target, the cargo bays open and the drogue chute pulls the first bomb out from the airplane where it drops to its deployment altitude and detonates. The plane will be a few miles away at this point, but not far enough for the pilots to keep their eye sight, which they might be expected to use to fly the plane. But that's why they had four bombs, because between the pilot and the co-pilot, they had four eyes and could hit four targets. So in order to keep the plane flying (possibly during anti-aircraft firing and performing maneuvers which the pilot would have to be able to see) the pilots had blackout glasses. Each one was a simple lead-lensed eye patch and there were three on the plane. The co-pilot would drop the first bomb, lose an eye, and then the pilot would lose an eye at the next bomb. Then the co drops and loses his other eye, and the final bomb drops to destroy the pilot's remaining sight. Then the plane crashes and the world is ever fucked.

That's how crazy nuclear war was already planned to be.