|
On May 10 2016 01:04 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 22:22 Ehzera wrote: Sports shoes = running shoes or whatever... But anyway hopefully I can get the ban revoked tomorrow Pretty ridiculous if it didn't get revoked. A ban for wearing the wrong shoes lol.
that ban is one of the dumbest things I've heard since "chalk messes up the floor. It's use is prohibitato."
|
No chalk just equals lazy gym employees. Although it is probably helpful to discourage the oi polloi from being silly.
|
Still banned. Whatever had to pay out of my own pocket to sign up for a commercial gym. The plates there aren't even normal sized
|
What the fuck dude? That's complete nonsense. Did you like totally scuff up the floors or something? I don't get it.
|
i remember back in school / 15 yrs ago i think there was something about not having black-soled shoes coz they mark the sports hall floor
|
No I just wore my Onitsukas in and went about my shit for awhile, then the attendee came to me and said no sneakers allow, you're banned. Then he made me leave the gym right away.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
I feel like there is more to this story. This does not seem like something that happens in the real world.
|
The trick to life is learning who to talk to .
|
On May 12 2016 00:54 zatic wrote: I feel like there is more to this story. This does not seem like something that happens in the real world. This was my thought as well but I've heard stories about Singapore. Really sucks since Onitsuka's are the best. I just wore mine out after like 6 years...
|
trhey look like sports sheos to me lol?
|
You should make it a bigger pain in the ass to ban you than revoking it. Show up daily to complaint and harras them on the phone until you are accepted and allowed to wear wathever you want.
I've learned there are certain times in life when you have to be an asshole.
|
you sound like you've been playing dota :/
|
I've been snatching a bit more using hook grip and it feels like the skin on the inside of my thumb is going to be ripped open. Is this normal? Do i need to develop thicker calluses there?
|
On May 13 2016 09:06 IgnE wrote: I've been snatching a bit more using hook grip and it feels like the skin on the inside of my thumb is going to be ripped open. Is this normal? Do i need to develop thicker calluses there? https://www.instagram.com/p/BFR0XN1Ls6c/
|
i don't think that's on point decaf. i'm not complaining about the pressure on my thumbs. i'm saying that it feels like the skin is going to rip right off. i actually had blisters after a 30 rep set @ 135. i just want to know if you get blisters / know what i'm talking about or if somehow my grip is not right.
|
Haha jk, just saw it yesterday and was too good not to post. Yeah your thumbs will toughen up. I started taping mine after a few years though, preference varies lifter to lifter. Although I doubt it matters how tough your thumb skin is at 30 reps. I also highly advise against sets of more than 5 for snatches, let alone thirty. Not the right exercise whatever the purpose of that is, unless the goal is to hurt yourself.
|
can you show me a picture of how you tape them
30 reps is some silly crossfit workout
|
Thoughts on these articles? Aside from the sensationalist headlines
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
We've long thought of weight loss in simple "calories in, calories out" terms. In a much-cited 1958 study, researcher Max Wishnofsky outlined a rule that many organizations — from the Mayo Clinic to Livestrong — still use to predict weight loss: A pound of human fat represents about 3,500 calories; therefore cutting 500 calories per day, through diet or physical activity, results in about a pound of weight loss per week. Similarly, adding 500 calories a day results in a weight gain of about the same.
Today, researchers view this rule as overly simple. They now think of human energy balance as "a dynamic and adaptable system," as one study describes. When you alter one component — cutting the number of calories you eat in a day to lose weight, doing more exercise than usual — this sets off a cascade of changes in the body that affect how many calories you use up, and in turn, your body weight.
For weight loss, calorie restriction seems to work better than exercise, and calorie restriction plus exercise can work a little better than calorie restriction alone, according to Allison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/why-you-cant-lose-weight-on-a-diet.html
But this study is just the latest example of research showing that in the long run dieting is rarely effective, doesn’t reliably improve health and does more harm than good. There is a better way to eat.
The root of the problem is not willpower but neuroscience. Metabolic suppression is one of several powerful tools that the brain uses to keep the body within a certain weight range, called the set point. The range, which varies from person to person, is determined by genes and life experience. When dieters’ weight drops below it, they not only burn fewer calories but also produce more hunger-inducing hormones and find eating more rewarding.
The first is really just talking about how dieting is more effective than exercising for losing weight, and that calorie estimates are complicated, not sure why it wants to make the point that exercising is ineffective when it clearly helps.
The second article is talking about drastic diets that can alter metabolism, which you guys have mentioned when I brought up wanting to try that 1500cal/day plan. I'm assuming this doesn't mean that the standard <500 deficit doesn't work.
|
Yes I have a lot of thoughts about them. With a sample size of morbidly obese people it's extremely bad practice to extrapolate these results to "normal" dieters who are only 2XX pounds and trying to lose weight. A lot of the people on that show were doing cardio for 6+ or even 9 hours a day, while eating very little. That's much different from building muscle, which increases your RMR. I also strongly suspect that their hormone systems are broken in ways that less obese people's systems aren't.
The short of it is that yeah, if you want to lose an appreciable amount of weight and keep it off, the best way to do that is to build muscle, which takes time, and to reset your body's complex hormonal systems and responses to food. It's lifestyle changes, not a "diet". If you can hold a weight and exercise routine for 2 or 3 years I don't think you have any reason to fear ongoing "metabolic suppression." The problem is that most people don't know how to make these long-term lifestyle changes, and so hope to "lose weight" in like 8 weeks and then somehow keep it off.
The articles really bother me because they implicitly affirm this "diets don't work, it's impossible to change your body" message that some groups are trying to press as part of a (perhaps well-intentioned, but wrong-headed) body acceptance culture. I could write at length on this topic.
|
well she's basically saying "dont bother to diet because statistics indicate that people always fail at dieting, and not only that but weight isn't an indicator of health. only eat when you are hungry."
but the way she writes it and makes statistics makes it read as "dont diet, it will make you put on weight like crazy. if you're already fat then dont worry, being obese is fine so long as you exercise and dont smoke. there is literally zero evidence to show that losing weight is good for you. btw dont eat too much"
also be aware that she likes to point out something she calls "the anomaly" where, statistically, overweight people live longer than other people (so consequently don't worry as much about being overweight). hint: i worked in care homes for 5 years and i could tell you the skinny ones don't have a good time.
|
|
|
|