Alfa

It does not have to be non stop. Maybe some rest could even be beneficial. It could be like working in intervalls. Let´s focus on cardiovascular capacity instead. Then it´s more a question of how it´s measured, not a question of "who´s in better shape than who?". Discussing the "better shape" you need the "for what purpose?". You wont see a bodybuilder or weightlifter win a triathlon, no way. There´s too much muscle, and in some cases too much fat. On the other hand, you wont see a triathlete squat 400lbs. Cardiovascular conditioning is not only about for how long you can run. "Who can run for the longest distance?" could be one way of measuring it - a pretty bad way because it favours certain body types. Bodybuilders and weight lifters will never win that contest, but it´s not because all of them are in such bad conditions.

1. I think the observation is correct, weight loss would make the exercising easier. However, making it easier the subjects would have produced less heat. 2. Same thing here. But I don´t think they could have gained much transferable strength. Strength increases for beginners are mostly due to neurologic adaptations. So they would have gotten better att performing the lifts, but that is not the same thing as the muscles actually getting stronger. Such increases would not help them run better because a higher skill in squats does not make you a better runner, but bigger and stronger muscles could make them better at both. Making any significant increases in such a short time seems unlikely, especially considering that they lost weight and that some of them were women. Some gains, sure, but small ones.

HIT is the acronym for High-intensity Training. It´s based on the ideas of Arthur Jones(check out http://arthurjonesexercise.com/), about "briefer, harder, more infrequent exercise". There are many different branches based on HIT-principles, for example Heavy Duty, SlowBurn/Super Slow, the IART etc. HIT is basically high-intensity low-volume training. When mentioning those 30 minutes it´s probably a standard full-body routine, one set to failure per exercise, around 8-12 reps and maybe a total of 8-12 exercises. It´s 30 minutes per session, which could be done maybe 1-3 times pers week depending on the individual. Often rest between sets is cut short, or almost completely removed. That will most certainly get ones blood running. But even with rest there is some cardiovascular conditioning. It´s not continuous aerobics. It gives a great cardio effect, yes, but it´s strength training - anaerobic work. Oh, every one is skeptical. I have tried arguing this probably a hundred times(but not on this forum), noone wants to believe it. Anyway, the only research i´ve seen is the one I already posted. I don´t know if there is much research available on this. My view is based on some simple reasoning and my own observations. The simple reasoning is that when working the muscles the heart(and lungs) must supply them with oxygen. The harder it gets, the harder the heart has to work. So working out tremendously hard in the gym, working the muscles much, much, much harder than what is possible with "cardio", does it not make perfectly good sense that the heart must get better at supplying the body with oxygen? And the observations? Well, if I went through one of my workouts today, with the conditioning I had 1 ½ years ago, I would drop dead half way into it. I mean literally die. That is how much my conditioning has improved. I have friends that have been doing lots of both cardio and weight training for many years. By any standard I think they could be called well conditioned, or athletic. Sometimes we get togheter to play some sports, which can get a little intense sometimes(some of us are a bit competitive). They are not easy to keep up with, but since I got in better shape i´m atleast damn close(and if my legs were better suited for long distance running they would probably struggle to keep up with me). That´s pretty good for training only for about an hour per week... I have not always been in bad shape either. I have played soccer, ice-hockey and done some kick-boxing too. Still... now, with less exercise and after being in the worst shape of my life, i´m without doubt in my best shape ever. I know "anecdotal evidence" is not much to come up with, but atleast I know what has worked for me.

Yes, probably. I think running produces about 2-3 times the bodyweight in impact forces for each step. Even if you squat that amount of weight, which is fairly strong, you are not likely to do thousands of repetitions in each session. Also that force would not come suddenly, but should be applied smoothly. The metabolism will drop from the loss of weight, which would be exactly the same with exercise or diet induced calorie deficit. Our bodies will not somehow drop the metabolism when calories are reduced - atleast not in any significant amounts. People who are starving, for example from anorexia, only drop their metabolism by around 10 percent. Something that might happen though is that leptin levels drop, making it more difficult to lose fat. I doubt that exercising or dieting makes any difference to that. http://www.einternalmedicinenews.com/ Feb 1, 2005 "Weight-Lifting Regimen Delivered Cardio Benefits ORLANDO, FLA. — Pure weight training can markedly improve aerobic fitness, Erika Baum, M.D., reported at Wonca 2004, the conference of the World Organization of Family Doctors. A 6-month structured Nautilus weightlifting program resulted in improvements in cardiocirculatory fitness to a degree traditionally considered obtainable only through endurance exercises such as running, bicycling, and swimming, said Dr. Baum, a family physician at Philipps University, Marburg, Germany. “This opens up new possibilities for cardiopulmonary-oriented exercise besides the traditional stamina sports,” she noted. New exercise options are desirable because some patients just don’t care for endurance exercise, which doesn’t do much to improve muscular strength and stabilization. Dr. Baum reported on 31 healthy but physically unfit 20- to 45-year-olds, including 8 women, who completed a Nautilus weight-training program involving two or three 30- to 40-minute sessions per week for 6 months. Aerobic capacity, assessed on a graded treadmill exercise test, improved by 33% over the course of 6 months from a mean baseline of 55,475 watt-seconds. Women improved from a baseline of 47,253 wattseconds to 62,822 watt-seconds, while endurance performance in men increased from 58,335 to 77,741 watt-seconds. Meanwhile, mean body weight declined from 77.8 to 67.7 kg. Resting heart rate dropped from a baseline of 68.5 beats/min to 65.6 beats/min. Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6 months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. —Bruce Jancin"

Don´t get me wrong now, I can take a good joke about Objectivists(and I don´t actually think you should be spanked ). It´s just that, well, I think Rothbard is more malicious than funny.

I think "Randian" is a poor choice for word. I have often seen it used by the same people who call Objectivists "Randriods", so it can easily be interpreted as a little offensive. Again, spanking could be in order. But I don´t think Moose meant it in an offensive way Something to consider is that the written word might not always come across as the author inteded. It´s easier when seeing each other face to face. Maybe Moose mentioned Reardens "nifty metal" in a belittleing tone, or maybe just in a fun way with a little smile added to it. I see this every time I write here because for me some of the communication also gets lost with the language. Sometimes i´m struggling not to sound like a retard. I think my english is pretty decent but I cannot express myself nearly as eloquently as in swedish. When reading I try to take most things in a good natured way, because I have found that in most cases that´s how it was meant. If in doubt, I try to ask the other person to clarify. And if i´m not making any sense at all now it´s because I havent had any sleep and the coffee aint working...

I can only speak for myself, and I havent felt attacked in any way, but rather enjoyed a little friendly debate. Although Strangelove should be spanked for posting that bloody Rothbards bloody Mozart Was a Red(yes, sometimes I do curse alot). Seriously, I can´t see that Moose did anything wrong here.

Well, it´s due to the steroids they can get so big, and of course the side effects from the steroid abuse are not healthy. The way I see it our bodies are made to carry a certain amount of muscle, determined by our genetic makeup - some people are big, others are small, and so on. Muscle is pretty expensive for the body, so too much is not very good for survival, and our organs(i´m not sure but I guess liver, kidneys, heart etc) have their limits for how much they can support. For those of us who don´t take "special medications" our bodies have different ways to regulate how much muscle we can build, for example our endocrine system should produce just the right amount of hormones that is best suited for us. Pro bodybuilders on the other hand take a shitload of steroids allowing them to exceed their bodies natural limits. This, I believe, makes it pretty tough on their bodies(plus, of course, that the steroids can give dangerous levels of blood fats and elevates the blood pressure). So I think atleast one problem there is simply too much muscle, similar to people who carry too much fat. For drug free people I don´t think there can be too much muscle. However, I do think that getting close to ones genetical limit it can put some added stress on the body. But theese are just my own speculations, not facts.

But theese people don´t need to educate themselves much at all. If they just want to lose a couple of pounds all they really need to do is eat less. Not much less, just a little bit. If they are more serious about their weight loss they just need to learn how to count calories fairly acuratley. Of course it helps to also know something about proper nutrition. The time investment here is very small, so I think everyone can afford it. Learning a little something about nutrition is also a good investment for a healthier life. And the thinking required for losing weight is simple adding and subtracting. Exercising for fat loss is, on the other hand, much more time consuming. It also takes a higher effort than to just eat a little less food, so people are more likley to quit the aerobics. For those who are willing to put in some more time and effort however, I think strength training is a better way to go. I think most people who do exercise do it for the health benefits(feeling better) and to look better. That is more effetively achieved with strength training than anything else. 30-60 minutes per week to gain all the benefits. Although you have to work out pretty hard. That will give cardio-vascular conditioning and stronger and bigger muscles - something that is more than just aesthetically pleasing later in life. Now I agree with you that this takes a little more knowledge than aerobics, but knowing alot about exercise physiology is not necessary. All that is needed is basically knowing how to perform the exercises, learning to workout hard and progressively, and having a few good routines to perform. I think you can get this by either investing in a good book or having a couple of sessions with a personal trainer. Not a very big investment. Although I do understand if some people would like to find an easier way - aerobics can provide that, but for a much smaller benefit.

No, I think that is incorrect. An extreme example, but look at some of the Mr. Olympia contestants. Some of them are just like severly obese people, they get winded from normal everyday activities. Their hearts seem to have a hell of alot trouble supporting the muscle, just like obese peoples hearts have trouble supporting the fat. This is obviously not a problem for normal people, but I think it shows that additional bodyweight can actually put an extra stress on the heart. Now i´m not saying more muscles equals bad, only that it takes more resources to support - so it´s not helping the heart either. Although exercising the muscles will make the heart adapt and function better, which I think was Mike Mentzer´s point.

* Not very well. It can help, somewhat, but the difference is not very big. Say for example that you can burn 1000 calories in a day, and that´s quite a lot of running etc, in a week that energy loss would be equivalent to about 2lbs of fat. Just trying to give you a better picture of how much or little it aids. Now also consider that exercise makes most people hungry, so after alot of exercise you would probably want to eat alot of food. Some bodybuilders claim that aerobic exercise helps when getting into contest shape. I don´t know if they are just fooling themselves or not, but if you´re not aiming for very low bodyfat levels I don´t think you need to concern yourself with that. My aproach to this whole issue is that don´t sit on your ass all day, be active; if you are going to add any additional exercise, make it (high-intensity) strength training. HIT is the way to go for cardiovascular conditioning, increased strength, more muscle and the health benefits theese things give you. I might add that I have lost around 60-70lbs on diet and HIT alone. So you absolutley do not need aerobic exercise to loose weight. And I would have no trouble keeping up with KendallJ´s wife´s Muay Thai class(although I could get my ass kicked), without practicing any aerobics. * Yes, and no. Meaning that, in general it will reduce the risk of heart disease, but in more extreme cases(marathoners for example) it could do the opposite. * Yes. Unless you are like me and hate doing aerobic exercise. In my opinion high intensity strenght training is more rewarding.

Okay, slightly above avarage then. Winston fell in love with the almost as a punishment for his own miserable existense. It wasnt in pursuit of his highest values, because there was not much that he valued at all. It seemed more like self-destruction than anything else. Sure, Winston began to "break away". But that was not much thanks to his ideals and ideas, because he did not have that many(he just liked coffee and sex - can´t blame him for that though ). He did not seem very smart, courageous or strong. The point of his defeat would have atleast been stronger if I had actually cared for him... I don´t normally have a problem with violence in movies either. Saving Private Ryan was allright, but I really disliked that scene in Casino... I don´t like seeing that kind ofutter, naked brutality. What I don´t see is the value in displaying violence in the most real and ugly way possible. I´m not arguing that it should be candy-coated, but they would still have gotten the point across while toning it down a little.

I´ll come back to the first part of your response later, when I have had a little time to think about it, so i´ll start with this. First of all, I would like to make a difference between the characters actions, and the way they are shown. Gansters are, of course, brutal. So, in a film about gangsters you will need to show them for what they are - violent criminals. However, I do not need to see someone beaten to death in great detail to understand the nature of the gangsters - like the scene in Casino where . It´s enough to show the violent acts in a believable way but additional detail is not necessary. Do you think violence should be shown in a perfectly realistic and detailed way? I read from an ex-mercenary that if you are going to shoot someone in the mouth you need to cover you eyes, unless you want to be blinded by exploding bone fragments. That´s how nice real violence is. Would you like that in a film? Or someone being beaten and suffering serious brain damage. That´s also something that could happen in real life. Not to mention lot´s of gory detail. Reality can be real friggin ugly sometimes, and I prefer movies not to delve too deep into this.

Yes, my criticism is that it didn't have "Randian heroes" and it didn't depict a good sense of life. My problem was not the sad ending or the realism. It is rather that the film lacked things that should have been, and could have been. In this case, why did Orwell tell a story about a mediocre man? And would this really be more realistic than having a hero istead? I think it´s more likely for a heroic man to break the rules of a totalitarian state... I don´t necessarily consider it a fault for a movie to be realistic. I depends on the purpose of the realism, and what parts of reality it focuses on. For example in Goodfellas and Casino i seem to remember a couple of scenes of violence that was unecessarily brutal. But, if you want it really real, why spare the viewer from any of the really "juicy" detail?

I don´t know if you have read 'We the living' so i´ll put this in spoiler-tags: What i´m arguing is that 1984 lacked the proper "sense of life". Ayn Rand showed us good fighting evil, in Orwell´s case its the mediocre fighting the truly evil. And that really makes 1984 depressing. Although, of course, 1984 should have credit for showing the evils of totalitarianism.

I don´t follow any TV shows right now, but some of my favourites are... CSI - you just gotta love that Grissom guy. Initial D (anime) - kinda childish, but there´s just something about it that I really enjoy... And my all time favourite, Poirot! I came here on TV when I was about 8-10 years old. I had read alot of Agatha Cristies books and enjoyed them, but I think the TV series was even better. I watched some old episodes again some time ago, and I ejoyed it even more. "Hercule Poirot: You think it is wrong, Hastings, to enjoy the compliments, or the 'buttering,' as you say? Captain Hastings: No, but do you have to show it quite so much? It's not English. Hercule Poirot: Perhaps it is Belgian. And why should I be the hypocrite, to blush when I am praised, and to say like you, "It is nothing." Hmph! I have the order, the method, and the psychology. There, I admit it. I am the best. I am Hercule Poirot. " "Captain Hastings: Well, I hadn't thought of that. Hercule Poirot: If you are to be Hercule Poirot, you must think of everything." "I cannot, truly I cannot, sit in a chair all day reflecting how truly admirable I am." "I do not approve of murder."

I have learned to sort out the really shitty films by reading the reviews. If it´s about "normal people" and not plot driven, then you can be pretty sure it´s a complete waste of time, because it usually means the "story"(actually, lack of story) is about loosers doing booring things and being depressed. I can enjoy most films as long as they are entertaining, but theese films I really, really hate. Anyway, yesterday I saw Nineteen eighty-four, and I have to add that to my shit-list. I havent actually read the book, and I don´t think I want to anymore. Of course I can agree with the political message, showing the evils of totalitarian socialist state. It´s just that there was a total lack of heroes. The main character was not very rational; he was sick, weak and not very individualistic. The girl was better, but they both came off as nihilistic. It should have been more in the lines of 'Anthem' and 'We the Living'.

I think "pretty good" is a huge understatement. I love it. Thanks!

Pictures from the other forum i mentioned: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/Pou...cier20Natio.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/Pou...sper20Natio.jpg http://gallery.kylig.com/d/231-2/soluppgang.jpg http://gallery.kylig.com/d/243-2/teplantage.jpg Myself, i´m dreamning of visiting Hong Kong: http://www.code-d.com/china/hong-kong-big.jpg http://www.code-d.com/china/victoria-peak-hong-kong-big.jpg http://www.neystadt.org/john/album/NZ/Hong...ng-at-Night.JPG From what i´ve seen, from pictures and on film, this is the only place that - when looking at it - i´ve felt that I belong there. Strange thing to say about a place i´ve never been to. But, it really gives me a feeling of... home. Great landscapes... well, they can be nice - as a place to go on vacation or something. I could go fishing in that lake, or take my car for a drive on an empty country road, but other than that such places do nothing for me.

You have some interesting points there... Regarding the first one, i´m not sure I fully agree with the part that he stopped thinking. However, it´s not shown very well. There were a couple of scenes I really liked. The first one, in the homeless shelter when the lights were out and he is reading his book. And the second, where he fixes the bone density scanner. I think this showed that instead of just sleeping and doing nothing, like the other homeless people, he was instead working hard - doing everything he could - to fix his situation. I completely agree with points 2 and 3. I think too much focus was placed on his struggle. I guess the film makers wanted to show that he worked very hard to get where he wanted, but they should have shown (better) that he was actually good at it too. They should have shown when ge got those Pac Bell accounts, and that he really did an exceptional job. Too little focus was placed on the "happyness"-part. The ending was like "so he got what he wanted, and now he´s happy". Sure, that´s nice, but what did it really mean for him to be happy and why did we not see him happy and victorious? I wanted to see him make lots of money, getting his own home, bying that Ferrari, getting his son into a better day care or school etc. etc. After all that struggle, there should have been pure joy - it should have been shown not just told.

In another forum that i´m frequenting there was a topic reagarding the most beatiful places. Inspired by this, i´d like to see what objectivists think. I believe the answers would be quite different...

I need to get rich and move there, now! Or maybe Florida, I think they might have nicer beaches there. Cold winters was probably invented by a communist...

It´s not a bad idea to have it installed in the car. Only problem could be making space in really small cars, but thats probably easy to solve. However, even if it´s a good idea, I doubt that it would be possible to make any money out of it. Car manufacturers would either just make it themselves, or they already have a manufacturer for this kind of stuff that can supply it for a really low price and in large quantities. (Damn, why do I sound so negative? )

Ah, I see. The summer in Texas is obviously hotter than here in sweden. One problem with solar powered air conditioning though, could be generating enough power. Say you need 5-10kW. I think a solar panel, on avarage, can deliver around 19-56W per square meter, or .45-1.35kWh/m2/day. A sunny day in Texas is probably in the higher range. However, i´m not sure how accurate theese figures are(I just made a quick search). But anyway, it seems like you would need pretty big panels to generate enough power - which would probably be rather expensive.

I once met this amazing girl. She was good looking, confident, intelligent and it seemed like we shared alot of the same values. Yes, Alfa was maybe falling in love. Most of all I think it was her incredible confidence. Atleast that´s how it appeared. I learned later that I was very much mistaken. She had not the confidence you would gain from your own virtue and achievment, it was rather a false confidence from ignoring the lack thereof. All attraction was gone like someone had blown out a candle. Even if she would have been the hottest girl on the planet I would not have touched her. I think having sex with a beautiful bimbo would be very much the same thing. I cannot appreciate such things. For those of you who just think about the physical act, imagine getting naked with a hot girl(or man) just to find out her personal hygiene is so bad it turns your stomach. Sure, you could ignore the smell and have sex with someone who atleast looks good, but I doubt anyone would want that. When someones mind stinks it should be an equal, or worse, turn-off.