One might. And its not inconsistent with the sentence. There could be several days of disorientation prior to being able to form the memory that they had a stroke a few days ago.
Personally I just have way too high standards while no person that can fulfil these would ever like me. I can't lower them. I can't settle for someone I don't really find attractive like I can settle for a cheaper car. Because a car has a practical purpose. Even if I wish I could have a cooler car the cheap car still gets me to places. But with a partner is different. I don't have to have one. I can be alone. Sometimes I think nothing is better than something. Solitude is better than an unsatisfying relationship.
"standards are too high" is the most common excuse people give when really they themselves are akward, solitary, etc.
You admit these impressive women would never like you. Perhaps, but then improve yourself.
Choosing to go without if you can't have the very best is an excuse. Do you live in the street because you don't have a mansion? Do you die because you can't afford to dine like the upper crust? Why is it that for a partner you suddenly need the very best?
This is the one discussion where insulting the party you're replying to is considered perfectly acceptable. You can always say someone you disagree with is <insert undesirable qualities here>, and nobody wants to admit that they're <insert undesirable qualities>.
Most people work to improve themselves, yet we do not expect anyone to be perfect, except here. Most people have faults. Some faults make them less dateable than other faults. Some they may not care that much about or don't know how to fix. After all, the average person falls short of many standards up until they die, despite all the attempts at improvement. It should surprise no one that a subset will always be that falls short, or they choose a different set to focus on. Yet we demand that such a subset does not exist when the subject of dating comes up?
> Why is it that for a partner you suddenly need the very best?
I don't know, maybe because a partner is one of the most influential people in your life and they can absolutely make or break it? They don't have to be the very best, but I don't understand why, in effectively every other area, people are often commended for being picky, but here, you are perceived better if you have anyone, anyone at all, even if it crashes and burns and results in some ruined lives one is responsible for (children).
Dating is not special. It doesn't get a pass. Some people just don't like the risk. Some don't assess well or don't know how. In any other area, we consider that the person's prerogative.
This all smells of giving the dating scenario incredibly heavy weight for no other reason but that nature programmed us to feel that way. I would like to think we can think beyond that, and also get rid of all the surrounding vitriol, judgment, and gossip.
You'll certainly do better in the self-improvement department if you avoid falling into the trap of: "I don't fit a certain arbitrary and hard to assess requirement, therefore I suck". I don't agree with the author's, err, parameters, but this is the one part I agree with, and I wouldn't be surprised he's happier for it. Nothing good ever comes out of thinking like that.
Pushups. They are the single best full body exercise, that can be done ANYWHERE, and rather quickly. When you've reached a sufficient rep, add a dip bar. Pull-ups should also be part of your routine as well.
Every hour or so while working at the computer, I'll get down and knock out twenty pushups or so. You'll be surprised at how fast you build up muscle endurance, and your lower back pain will be gone.
If you actively try to engage your core (abs, back, gluts) isometrically while doing pushups you gain more than just arms, chest and shoulder workout. It's about the form - you have to consciously focus on it.
Pushups are great, but don't just do pushups - you definitely want to integrate pull-ups to get a balance between chest & back. If your chest muscles are overdeveloped relative to your back, you are exacerbating the bad computer posture of shoulders rolled forward and forward head posture known as upper crossed syndrome.
For 99% of people here just push-ups will be much better than nothing, it's much harder to find a pull up bar than do push-ups. You won't get overdeveloped muscle just from push-ups.
A good exercise to pair with push ups is horizontal rows. They're easier than pull ups and don't require a pull up bar. I do them with a sturdy wooden broom handle between the back of 2 chairs.
I would argue for the accessibility, yes. Swimming requires going to a pool, which means it will never happen. Pushups can be done anywhere with enough room for your body.
My advice would be to incorporate it as part of your everyday life. Cycle to work, if you live far, get a battery assisted bike.
I am a massive fan of yoga as well, the general and core strength you need for that is incredible along with keeping your body limber (which helps fighting injuries and just generally helps with people sitting a lot).
Get in a pool and just go as fast as you can, for as long as you can. Take a short break, repeat. Do this for 15 minutes a day and you will experience a massive difference in your life.
High intensity training is very good and a pool exercises a lot of muscles, great cardio and very little strain on your body.
I'm surprised you mention swimming has changed your life. I was always suspicious of the way I had begun thinking of my life in terms of "Before Swimming" and "After Swimming" phases.
Has this been your experience too ? I used to bike an hour a day earlier, but swimming has done something else to my well-being and productivity.
Swimming with its deeply regulated breathing opened a door in my mind as far meditative exercise is concerned. It definitely altered the way I experienced exercise, friends who run long distances say similar things about that.
The transformative aspect that I was referring too however was not that, more that swimming as an exercise form is strengthening, incredible cardio and learning to breathe properly is a result of getting better at it.
Moderate exercise 150mn weekly. Can be distributed into 3 to 5 weekly sessions.
If you are male, you can also do intense instead of moderate exercise.
For types of exercise, endurance exercise like running or cross country skiing have been found to extend most lifespan, followed by team sports and last strength training
If all that sounds complicated, my advice is to find a job or a hobby that involves moderate exercise. Gardening as a hobby is a good example. Or commit to commute by bike every day
People who know that I commute at good weather by bike and at bad weather walking (2*70 minutes a day) say I am crazy. People who see my code (I am writing PL/SQL for my living) say that my solutions are crazy simple and efficient. They don't know that all my good ideas came after 45-60 minutes of walking and because of this I always have a pen and paper in my pocket.
I wish that worked for me, I don't solve much while on a bike, possibly because my attention goes to traffic. Walking works much better, I can zone out and think about stuff. Biking does make me feel good afterwards though so I would say the net effect on cognition is still positive.
Same thing for me here (and for most people who commute by bike every day). The increased blood flow must help or something like that. Physical activity is about so much more than losing weight.
I think it's also the removal of the constant stimuli competing for your attention with other forms of transportation. If you take a train, you're probably looking at your phone, or trying to catch up on something on your laptop en route. If you drive, you're likely listening to music, ads on the radio, an npr piece talking about something you like, etc.
Being on a bike, your priorities shift to keeping yourself alive occasionally, but mostly just thinking while moving forward. It's generally a good place to solve problems for me too.
Amazing what happens when you stop bombarding your brain with social media and other screen time. The brain is probably getting less blood when exercising as muscles need it more.
Most of the evidence I'ev seen points toward cardio for longevity. My goal isn't longevity, though.
Doing anything s better than doing nothing, so you should pursue the fitness routine that suits your goals, so that's cardio if you want to live forever, but I don't, so I squat.
Ride a bicycle to work, or the equivalent 45 minutes a day, 4 out of 5 days a week. Lower impact cardio than most other forms, fun, effective transportation, and if you want to turn it into an anaerobic intensity workout, you can.
Barbell training (e.g., presses, squats, deadlifts, etc.) 2+ days per week to the point that you can deadlift twice your bodyweight or more. Get to the point of being able to do 30 pullups in a row.
Running 30 minutes or more 3+ days per week until you can run a 5k in less than 20 minutes. (Any form of cardio is acceptable and has an equivalent distance and pace.)
The above are goals that are achievable for most people given time and not overly complicated training (probably a year or two with competent programming, adequate nutrition, and recovery) and easily maintained once reached until you're quite close to death. They are, to some degree, arbitrary, but represent a good area to target to reap the most benefits without risking injury from training volume.
Our bodies were meant to be used.
(This, of course, doesn't address diet, which is probably more important.)
Running 5k under 20 minutes is not an achievable goal for most people over 30...I play soccer twice a week and so weight lifting, am in pretty good shape and tried to run 5k in under 20 minutes and just could not, spent like half a year running almost every other evening and the best I could get was 21:20. And it's definitely not easily maintained...
Also 30 pull ups is not an easily achievable number...my friend who is was a gymnast for like 15 years can barely do 25-30...
Don't give people unrealistic goals, they will just feel much worse and stop trying when they realize that they could not achieve those "easy target"...
It's funny you make that claim but are only 1:20 away from it.
Same with your friend who can do 30 . . . .
You probably only have to increase the number of slow miles you run per week to get to sub-20. That's the usual advice in r/running.
For 30+ pullups, I never said it was easy. A program I like is the Strongfirst Fighter Pullup program. Another is the Armstrong program.
Most people don't train for those goals explicitly and they aren't aware of the programming and other lifestyle choices that will take them there. There's a difference between easy and achievable.
Those numbers are not achievable in 1 year maybe but are definitely achievable without being pro or anything like that. It might take you few years but if you set those as a goal you'll get there with recreational kind of exercise levels. Talking from my and my friends experience. I am 36.
sn9 Whats your weight btw? I think these goals are probably easier if you're on the lighter end. I'm 210lbs been working out for years and most of these goals seem unachievable.
I feel like these goal would barely be achievable for your average man who is 200 lbs and in his 30's or 40's without a fanatical devotion to weight lifting, a high protein diet, and probably a large supplement intake(creatine).
Even then I would be surprised if greater than 50% of the 200 lb + men could achieve a sub 20 minute 5k, do 30 pulls ups, and a 400lb dead lift.
I totally agree that running, deadlifts, and pull ups are great exercises.
And while goals can be motivating, un-achievable goals can also be demotivating.
Regarding the comment about exercises forcing you to be lean, you might not familiar with most of the research on exercise and how it affects weight. But the best way to summarize it is "Exercise is a great obesity preventative, it is a completely ineffective cure."
I meant that getting leaner through some combination of diet and exercise will make those goals all more achievable, which has obvious health benefits and is something I had in mind when deciding on those goals.
That's more a problem with how difficult and expensive it is to design and implement good studies.
Studies that rely on self-reporting eating history skew the results to ambiguity, but studies in which the experimenters have full and unambiguous knowledge of calories and macronutrients consumed by subjects reveal that the difference in calories digested and the calories burned explains pretty much all changes in weight. It gets only slightly more complicated when talking about body composition (basically, eat enough protein to support your lean body mass and any athletic activity), and even more complicated when talking about long term health (e.g., micronutrient levels that support long-term physiological maintenance mechanisms which are neglected in the sub-clinical nutrient deficient states most people find themselves in).
Fairly simple linear relationships can be used to freely manipulate one's weight, as shown by pretty much any bodybuilder or athlete competing in a sport with weight classes.
Studies aside, it's obvious that relationship between calories digested compared to calories burned is the main determinant of weight as starving populations around the world can tell you. You can't create or maintain mass without the required energy to support cellular metabolism. The physiology and biochemistry is understood well enough for this not to be an issue. The problems professed by the media reporting on studies are mainly ones of measurement (as people don't usually know how to accurately measure their caloric intake, which is why self-reporting studies are basically worthless) and commitment to lifestyles in which they don't chronically overeat relative to their activity level.
It's true if you eat fewer calories you will be thinner, but every study done on diets over the long term(3+ years) shows success rates that hover around 5%(for people who have already succeeded in losing significant weight)
Imagine we gave the startup advice "make lots of money, spend very little money". It is advice that every successful company since the beginning of time has followed. And every failed company has failed to do so. However this advice is exactly as valuable as the advice "eat less calories, burn more".
This is 100% because they fail to adhere to a caloric intake that is at or below their TDEE. That's about behavior, not physiology. They aren't violating the first law of thermodynamics and creating new mass and energy out of nothing. They're eating too much. They aren't tracking their weight and modifying their behavior when they see it going in a direction they and their physicians don't want.
It's no different than the fact that you must spend less than you make to avoid going into debt, and that you must save a certain percentage of your income to save up enough for retirement so that you can continue your standard of living once you retire. And yet we find huge portions of the US population in debt with little to no savings. This doesn't mean the advice is bad or invaluable.
This doesn't mean they're mentally incapable of saving up. That's a behavioral issue, too. And behaviors can be modified. There's research about how to successfully do that, too. Entire industries revolve around modifying behaviors to extract profit from people.
That the studies that you are personally aware of show that people have trouble maintaining a healthy weight suggests, not that it's impossible, but that the subjects don't know how to form and maintain habits.
That people can't implement advice doesn't mean it isn't valuable. At most, it just means they need more advice or counsel. But not different, mutually exclusive, advice.
The deadlift is by far the easiest part of what he said. In fact, it's almost trivial if all you're aiming for is 1 repetition.
I know 5 experienced weight lifters and most of them struggle to do 1 pull-up (yes, ONE). None of them run, so doing a 5k under 20 is definitely out of the question (also a factor of age and height).
Also those goals are definitely not for the majority of people, because they require a MAJOR lifestyle change (3x30min/week won't cut it here). It's achievable, but like he said, not easy.
I would say your weight lifter friends are most likely guilty of not using good programs or just not working towards those goals or both.
Plenty of strength athletes can move tremendous weights but don't know how to program pullups effectively. Even fewer spend any time on cardio.
Agreed on 3x30minutes being unlikely to be sufficient, but I wanted to give more of a starting off point. For example, Couch to 5k followed by Bridge to 10k is likely enough volume to get you a large part of the way there. Then increasing your weekly mileage to at least 30 miles per week and you'll be right on your way to sub-20.
Personally doing barbell training, to roughly this extent and enjoying it a lot
I don't think that's a recipe for everyone: I got a lot buffer than I was (had to buy new pants / shirts because of the increase in my chest and thigh girth), I am definitely healthier than I ever was: no more back pain, no more grunting like an old man when getting out of my chair, haven't had to use any antibiotics in 3 years (I used to get a lot of ENT infections).
Now, I could have achieve the healthy part by just doing some cardio/bodyweight exercises (e.g.: pushups/pullups). Powerlifting is, by far, out of all the regimen I researched, the most bang for your buck. However, not everyone wants/needs to build muscle/get buffed more than necessary, and deadlifting 2x your body-weight is certainly unnecessary (but extremely gratifying!).
those are some ridiculous statements. i'll ignore rest and focus on 2x the body weight via deadlifts. for me this would mean doing 180kg (400 pound) deadlifts which most people simply never ever achieve with 2-3x/week routine (I am lean 188cm tall sporty guy).
unless you have a) excellent genes for joints and all connective tissue (tendons, legaments etc) and b) super-duper perfect flawless form that you can maintain at any situation and any point of exhaustion, you will screw up your body. it might take 10 years or 20 to see it, but reaching 60-70 you will be more crippled than most sendentary people.
there are many good advices in this discussion here, but these are not one of those.
> i'll ignore rest and focus on 2x the body weight via deadlifts. for me this would mean doing 180kg (400 pound) deadlifts which most people simply never ever achieve with 2-3x/week routine (I am lean 188cm tall sporty guy).
Most people follow the wrong routine. I went from no prior weight lifting experience to a 180kg deadlift at 75kg body weight at 180cm height in just over six months training three times a week. No one considered this unusual. The difference is that I was training together with experienced powerlifters.
I stopped competing in powerlifting nine years ago and now lift casually to keep in shape and as physical therapy for injuries sustained from other activities. There is no way I could get from the 100kg I lift now back up to 200+ using this approach, and most people I see in the gym don't even try as hard as that. 180kg is definitely possible training twice a week if you train right.
> unless you have a) excellent genes for joints and all connective tissue (tendons, legaments etc) and b) super-duper perfect flawless form that you can maintain at any situation and any point of exhaustion, you will screw up your body. it might take 10 years or 20 to see it, but reaching 60-70 you will be more crippled than most sendentary people.
What makes you say this? Anecdotally I have known a few 60- and 70- year old powerlifters who still put up 140kg+ deadlifts and they seemed fine. The older retired Olympic weightlifters I have met seemed fine as well.
A double bodyweight deadlift is actually an extremely common milestone for people running an intelligently designed program within the first 6 months to a year of training, if not sooner.
Every time you close a ticket reward yourself with 10 push-ups or crunches. I know a guy that got a six-pack doing this. After doing it for a while hormones will start to kick in and you will crave it, meaning you will be more productive!
I think being able to draw would really make me happy but I just can't make it through those countless hours of deliberate practice I would need to put in before I can produce any worthwhile art.
I've got talent w.r.t drawing. Never seriously practiced it. But, I've always been the "best" and have sold some skteches/paintings on etsy on the side.
So two things:
1. There are lots of areas where I suck: I just happened to get lucky with one thing. The point is I don't focus on what I lack, rather I focus on what I've got.
2. Ekh. What is worthwhile art? Anyone who seems my stuff at home is amazed. It's a great ego boost. But, I'm not Picasso. So really what's worthwhile to you? An ego boost? Maybe there are better ways to get it?
It doesn't take long at all to teach the basic tricks of how to draw. Maybe find a short course of evening classes at your local college? And have fun :)
Edit: I hope that doesn't sound patronising, I am assuming you are a beginner but of course you might just be someone with impossibly high standards
To me it seems like depression is a mindset issue.
After all if depression was caused by external factors only wouldn't all poor people, ugly people, disabled people be depressed? Didn't the majority of the world always live in poverty? How would we have come so far if most people were depressed?
So the question is how can you truly adopt a positive mindset once you got a negative one? Doesn't that feel like self-deception?
My question to you is, how can you change your unconscious thoughts and behaviors?
Think of this in relation to thought crime, from 1984 by George Orwell. You say to yourself, "Okay, I am depressed. I have thoughts of suicide and in general, I am miserable 24/7. Let's stop"
What do you do when, untriggered, a mistake from your past or even a happy memory of what once was comes to the front of your mind and you begin to dwell on it?
Do you tell yourself "Okay, stop thinking about this now"?
It doesn't really work like that, especially when you don't have someone to talk to.
I've struggled with these things for some time, largely alone. For me and a lot of people I've come across, depression isn't just sadness, or immense sadeness.
Depression is hopelessness, dread, [lots of] anxiety, self loathing and loneliness.
Depression is wanting so badly for someone to help but the few that are willing can't since you're unable to articulate what you need because you don't even know.
Depression makes you feel isolated and different from all of the people around you, forces you to be withdrawn. You want to break out so badly but you can't, and at worst people (friends and strangers alike) actively avoid you because you seem so off. Conversations are ended abruptly, odd looks are given, and that just adds to all the stress.
I don't know if this is for everybody but I've found a love of Muay Thai. It's taken me away from the computer and almost feels like I'm 'levelling up'. +10 stamina +10 agility.
The other things I'm trying:
- Daily meditation
- Regular sleep routine.
- Got rid of my smartphone
- Ignore all social media
- Unitasking with one screen, one task at a time
This is some of the stuff I've been doing to help alleviate the stress that I put on myself. Might work for some, might not.
Since they don't mention the sensor size I assume it will be barely bigger than that of an average smartphone. So I expect the image quality to be underwhelming. There was the Lumix CM1 and it wasn't a huge hit so I don't know why this would sell well since it doesn't look like it's doing anything better.
Can you just get the nutrition supplements from the drug store or are those all no good? I want to supplement magnesium since I am sure I am not getting enough.
Yes most of these can be found in basic drug stores or health food stores, especially magnesium supplements or natural supplements such as ashwagandha. However, you won't find any finils or racetams except online.
Don't you have to get to the ER within hours when you have a stroke?