chasfh

Two fun facts: Per Fangraphs, released yesterday, Tigers are #8 in their MLB Power Rankings. The Tigers are actually the top American League team ranked, as the top seven are all National League teams.

The only team we would get to taste beer when we were kids was when dad would have a Stroh’s in a bottle for dinner, and then at the end of dinner he would allow one of us sons to finish the last sip. It was warm and awful. It might have been part of a strategy of his. If it was, it didn’t work. 🍺

Probably, but in the meantime, Maeda serves a real purpose as the garbage time guy who can save the bullpen, particularly in the 5-7-run difference range late in the game when we can’t use a position player to pitch.

I’ve never rooted so hard for Harvard in my life.

It’s the control, too. It’s some of all of that.

Too bad we don’t get the shutout but this is exactly when you let Maeda stretch.

Yes, it's about starving low-cost areas of government that generate trust and knowledge fore the America people to pay for tax cuts none of us make enough income to get. But it is also about the cruelty and the revenge and the public performance of both. It's about all of it.

Right, you can't do calorie deficit forever. At some point you get to where you want to be and then shoot for calorie equilibrium. I suppose another way is to do calorie deficit during the week, then allow yourself cheat days during the weekend. But bodies generally like it better if you're consistent all week. A big problem people have is when they try to lose too much weight too quickly, like, say, 30 pounds in eight weeks. That's insane, and it's really hard to get there by calorie reduction alone because you'd have to cut your daily calorie intake by something like 2,000 calories a day to achieve that, and 2,000 calories is closing in to the recommended daily total calorie intake for grown men. The other part is people who lose too much weight too fast tend to boomerang and gain it all back just as quickly due to psychological reasons. The most reliable way to lose weight and keep it off is to shoot for losing one pound per week. Wanna lose 25 pounds? Budget six months for that. That would require reducing calorie by 500 per day from whatever your recommended limit is, so, probably eating 1,800 or 2,000 calories in a day. It's not super easy because you'll probably have to give up snacking, but it's doable, and you don't end starving yourself in the process. Slow and steady wins that race every time.

It's all legal, so what's the ****ing problem? 😶

Isn't Ozempic's USP all about suppressing appetite? So even using that is consistent with the calorie deficit strategy.

Yea you do. 😜

Heck no it’s not easy. That’s why it takes work! But yeah, there are a lot of social pressures that compel people to eat, no doubt. But if you want to lose weight, don’t have the kind of affliction that needs professional help, and you have some control over how much you can eat and move around, you’d need to find a way to ignore the social cues for however long you need to and put in that work to accomplish your objective. There’s no other way around it. If you have the ability, it’s up to you. I would think the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps would be all over that message. Then again, I think a key thing we’ve learned about those people is that bootstraps aren’t for them—they’re for rest of us.

Do what you feel you need to.

If you have a food addiction issue, then obviously the simple calorie deficit strategy doesn’t apply to you. If you don’t have a food addiction issue, and you can control how much you eat and how much activity you can put forward, and you want to lose weight, then you’re simply gonna have to put in the work. There’s no way around that. Sorry.

Yes that’s true, people with that kind of uncertainty around where their next meal is from have a different set of imperatives to which this discussion does not apply. I’m not sure whether any of the principals in this sidebar are experiencing that kind of food insecurity, but if so, the strategy of calorie deficit to lose weight is not relevant to them.

I don’t know what you’re on about here, but the bottom line relevant to the topic at hand is that for the majority of people, mainly those who don’t experience food addiction, the key to losing weight is expending more calories than you take in. If you have a food addiction and you need professional help to address it, then this simple solution doesn’t apply to you. If you don’t have a food addiction and you simply don’t want to run the calorie deficit needed to lose weight, then that’s a decision you’re certainly free to make.

Right.

The University of Michigan. 1 in 8 Americans over 50 show signs of food addiction By process of elimination, seven out of eight people are not addicted to food. I don't know what you think the relevance of drugs or alcohol is here, but we're talking about portion size, diet culture, and losing weight.

Loyal, they like. That is, in fact, a non-starter for them. Everything else is negotiable at best, or otherwise unnecessary.

Seven out of every eight people are not so addicted to food that they are compelled to eat enormous amounts practically nonstop, as though it were an addictive drug. Yes, one in eight are, and if they want to address it, they will need special help. As for the rest of us, we simply gotta put in the work, depending on how bad we want it.

Looks to me as though they don’t want to raise boys to be thoughtful and sensitive. Looks as though they would prefer to raise boys to be inconsiderate and aggressive. Perhaps they have a particular vision in mind for what role in society such boys will fill.

Yeah, losing weight is hard. Eating less food is hard. Eating the right food is hard. Moving around more is hard. Putting in the work to lose weight is just hard. But only a small sliver of people are fat because of genetics, so for the rest of us, it all comes down to, how bad do we want it?

I used to be all alone here on this island. Welcome aboard … ?

lol his ear was “scared” from the “gunshot wound”

She was willing to try to a deal with the devil to get needed resources from the federal government for her state, the kind every governor in the nation needs for their state and has received in the past. But I suppose she could have stuck to your apparently preferred strategy of Try Nothing Get Nothing.