TGHusker

TG, there is nothing wrong with an aggressive goal, but it's also good to set smaller goals that you can meet in a shorter time period. Like, I want to drop 7 pounds by April 1. That way you have short-term goals that you can reach, that lead towards your long-term goal. Very good thought. We (mgrs at work discussing wt HR) just talked about setting similar goals - short term and long term for our employees. Good idea to apply it here. Now I did lose 12 lbs from Kidney stones (hospital for 3 days and one nurse said it is as bad as labor - since she's done both - my wife doesn't have that 'not as painful as labor' to hold over my head anymore!) but I gained about 6 back - probably lost a lot of water. That would have been a nice 'jump start' but I wouldn't recommend stones for a diet plan. I thought you were joking by exaggerating how big your kidney stones were. Now that I'm reading it correctly I no longer think you had 12 lbs of kidney stones I haven't had the pleasure of kidney stones but friends have told me how bad they are. One lost 95% functionality of one of his kidneys. He drank a lot of coke. Believe me it felt like 12 lbs of stones. Hard to believe one tiny 'pebble' can cause so much pain. Yes, it is a 'pleasure' you don't need to experience.

What was your routine to go from 240 to 192?

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!!

The existing immigration law still stands as the 'law of the land'. Obama's executive order has been placed on hold by a federal judge. Obama tells ICE agents basically to not do their job under existing law. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of his oath of office to uphold the constitution and isn't it promoting 'lawlessness'?? I just don't get it how a president, any president, can tell an agency not to fulfill their obligations under the law.. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consequences-ice-officials-who-dont-follow-executive-amnesty_866479.html copied here: President Obama warned workers at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: implement executive amnesty, or else. He made the comments in a town hall event on immigration on MSNBC. According to the White House pool report, President Obama was asked for reassurance that people wouldn't be deported as the legal battle over the executive amnesty plays out in the courts. “Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be,” Obama said, according to a partial transcript provided by the pool reporter. “Not only are we going to have to win this legal fight.. but ultimately we’re still going to pass a law through Congress. The bottom line is I’m using all the legal power invested in me in order to solve this problem.” “If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.” UPDATE: Here are the remarks, via a transcript provided by the White House: MR. DIAZ-BALART: But what are the consequences? Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won’t be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences THE PRESIDENT: José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it. So I can’t speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what’s true in the government, generally. In the U.S. military, when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. It doesn’t mean that everybody follows the order. If they don’t, they’ve got a problem. And the same is going to be true with respect to the policies that we’re putting forward.

Good article from Vox. Hope it is true to the reality in the Mid East. http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8085197/is-isis-losing

sounds a lot like my diet. However, I think I've over dosed on peanuts, sunflower seeds - the anxious or bored eating kind at work sitting at a desk. That is probably one reason all of the good food (in moderate servings) I've eaten & exercises hasn't lowered my body weight much. As noted on the other tread of mine (losing weight over 550) it was mentioned that fiber is really important - I've not done a good job there.

TG, there is nothing wrong with an aggressive goal, but it's also good to set smaller goals that you can meet in a shorter time period. Like, I want to drop 7 pounds by April 1. That way you have short-term goals that you can reach, that lead towards your long-term goal. Very good thought. We (mgrs at work discussing wt HR) just talked about setting similar goals - short term and long term for our employees. Good idea to apply it here. Now I did lose 12 lbs from Kidney stones (hospital for 3 days and one nurse said it is as bad as labor - since she's done both - my wife doesn't have that 'not as painful as labor' to hold over my head anymore!) but I gained about 6 back - probably lost a lot of water. That would have been a nice 'jump start' but I wouldn't recommend stones for a diet plan.

Based on the below it isn't just certain conservative groups that distrust science, the same can be said of liberals - it appears that it is politics not the brain that gets in the way of scientific acceptance http://ann.sagepub.com/content/658/1/36.abstract http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberals-are-as-anti-science-as-conservatives-study-finds-134614/ I copied it below so you don't have to watch the ad to get into the article The study's sample of 1,518 adults were divided into three groups. Group one was asked about scientific research related to climate change and evolution that challenged the views of many conservatives; group two was asked about scientific research related to fracking (a natural gas extraction method) and nuclear power that challenged the views of many liberals; and group three was asked about politically neutral scientific research related to astronomy or geology. Both liberals and conservatives were less likely to trust the scientific results in the groups where those results were out of sync with their own ideology. Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science. Conservatives and liberals were not equally likely to reject the science that was dissonant with their ideology. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to be distrustful. The authors attribute this to media coverage of the debates. There has been much coverage of the scientific debates over climate change and evolution. By comparison, there has been little coverage of the scientific debates over fracking and nuclear power. Respondents, therefore, would be much more aware of controversies over climate change and evolution than fracking and nuclear power. The researchers also found higher levels of anger associated with the distrust over climate change and evolution than the distrust over fracking and nuclear power. In the discussion section of the paper, the authors claim that the distrust in science that develops over politicized scientific findings harms the ability of scientists "to be effective communicators and advocates for science." They also argue that the previous studies presuming to show that conservatives were more anti-science than liberals due to a mental deficiency did a "disservice" to the cause of science communication, and likely made matters worse. "By promoting the idea that there are inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals when forming attitudes and making judgments about science, they are effectively — and ironically — contributing to the very political polarization of science they decry and thereby inhibiting more effective science communication. ... by targeting conservatives specifically as somehow uniquely deficient when it comes to science, the overall framework of [that view] lends itself to focusing on ideological countermobilization and/or a conversion of worldviews ("If only everyone were liberal!"), rather than to bridging ideological gaps. ... Demonizing a third of the population in a science policy debate by claiming they have an insurmountable psychological deficit does nothing to promote a solution to the challenges of effective science communication. And, as we have shown here, it is not empirically justified," they wrote.

My goal of losing 33 lbs is a bit to digressive for June 1. If I can do 20 lbs by June 1 - I think that is more manageable. Maybe 33 by end of summer. Let's keep cking in to see how we are doing.

I just started the tread, put your ideas on it and we can work the details out

I'll take NUance's advise (from my Losing weight for over 55 year old thread) We can determine the rules on who lost the most - is it by total pounds (obvious answer) or by % of goal met, or beginning weight vs ending weight ratio, etc. If you guys have a best way of doing this, chip in on the thread. I'll start it. Maybe we make the goal June 1 - the date NUance said he wants to be in swimming shape. Maybe we can chip in with advice, encouragement and ways to keep it off. By the way, I'm not on HB Board as much as many of you, so feel free to take charge of this thread if I don't get a chance to contribute as much as some of you. If you guys are comfortable wt guidelines - you have my blessings - I just started it - I don't mind if others drive it if they have time. I'm currently at 218 my goal is 185 - 33 lb loss goal.

Guys - lot of great discussion here and ideas. I think I'll take NUance's advise and start a Biggest Loser thread. I'll throw out the idea and we can determine the rules on who lost the most - is it by total pounds (obvious answer) or by % of goal met, or beginning weight vs ending weight ratio, etc. If you guys have a best way of doing this, chip in on the thread. I'll start it.

I've heard actually that is a bad idea, because it gets the body to slow its metabolism. I don't know how true that is, but I try to start my day with something, however small, soon after waking up. But, again, what works for one may not work for another. I like the idea of maybe having a smaller dinner than lunch, but that rarely works for me. Not eating breakfast is a terrible idea. After a night of sleep, your body is starving for something to fuel itself. What I typically try to do is eat breakfast, but try to have my biggest meal of the day at lunch, and then eat a light dinner. I have all afternoon/evening to burn the calories from lunch, and then I try to go to bed slightly hungry. Anything in your stomach first thing in the morning kick-starts the metabolism & digestive processes. Not doing this causes your body to think it needs to store fat. It gets your metabolism & digestive system working against you. You don't need to eat a lot but gotta eat something. As far as going to bed hungry, be careful with that. You want to be satiated when you go to bed or you can fall into the same issues as not eating breakfast... Eating in bed can be fun, but it may not provide much caloric intake, if you know what I mean. - kind of got off topic

very good info. Thanks much - I think I have been in too much of a routine -the same thing all the time. I use to belong to a club that had a pool and that is all I did was to swim. I think I gained a sore shoulder and didn't loose much weight

BRB is especially correct with these statements. In your age group, you also need to think about joint & bone health. Range of motion with different excercises will help with both of these. If you just do one thing, it's harder to push the body in regards to calorie management. I am 6' and ~6 years ago, I decided to drop ~35 lbs. I have kept almost all of it off since then (~32.5 lbs). I played competive sports until my early 30s and that was when weight became an issue. I was running at least 7 miles per day, weight training at least 3x per week and eating healthy and still got out of balance on calorie intake vs expenditure. It starts & ends with diet for your age group. The healthier you eat, the easier it will be, imo. With the exception of highly processed foods & soda, it's about moderation. Sugar is a killer as with most processed foods. My big issue was fresh fruit. I ate healthy but too much fresh fruit can be like too much soda... One tip I got from a GI Dr & nutrionist that works with a lot of Olympic & pro atheletes is fiber intake. She was religous about males over middle-age needing well over 40g fiber daily. At least 60% from natural food sources (non-processed veggies). This is bare minimum & her general rule over 35+ was 45-50g per day. For myself, I found that staying within this range gave me way more flexibility with the rest of my diet. Her rule for meals was carb to fiber ratio... My recommendation is definitely speak with someone in this space (GI and/or nutrionist) as it will make it much easier to make adjustments to your diet. Losing the wieght only to put it back on again starts a very unhealthy cycle. Best to avioid if you can... Thanks everyone for your input. It is really appreciated. I think you hit on something here ColoNo. I eat pretty decently - my wife has to be gluten free so that affects our meals at home, I normally have a salad, fruit and either chicken or salmon on my salad for lunch. However, I may be getting too much fruit - normally a apple (or 2), banana, orange a day. Plus my "healthy' snacks typically are peanuts, nuts and sunflower seed (and the occasional junk salty chips from the snack machine). I rarely have a soda and we know the problem wt sugar (cancer loves it - so we use more healthy alternatives if possible). So I may be getting too many natural sugars from the fruit, too much salt from my snacks, and not enough fiber. I've lost 20 or more lbs before only to gain it back Thanks for the input

Everyone, I'd like to lose 30 - 40 lbs (I'm at 218 now) and am 5'10.5" & I'm 59 years old. I've never been much of a weight lifter even in my HS days when I played 4 different sports. But I hear that doing a lot of weight reps very fast is the best way to lose fat and pounds - better than the aerobic exercises. What would you guys say (the guys who know a thing or 2 about training) suggest as a sample workout routine. I belong to a Planet Fitness gym here in town so they have the machines and the free weights but no pool. Thanks for the tips. PS- also - have any of you found a way to be accountable to someone else that works - to keep you motivated and pursuing your goal?

I believe this was my last one also. I kept watching the 2014 wisc game to see how may rushing yards Wisc would actually rack up against us. I guess I was a gluten for punishment at that point.

He's our DB coach....over qualified for it IMO great hire Funny, we go from a staff in which we were complaining about their lack of experience in many cases to a staff that has experience over flowing from every direction - NFL, Major college, etc Nice problem to have - wondering if this experienced staff will move on in a few years. In the mean time I'll just enjoy watching these guys develop our players.

Giving up my 'right' to man cave time at night in order to spend time wt my wife and listening to her first.

Heh. Didn't know that. news to me

I'll take the train. When it happens, you know it instantly, and clean up is easier. And its also pretty much impossible to hide and cover up. This made national news. The regular oil leaks in existing pipelines do not make the major news cycle. Give me transparency. good point

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/west-virginia-oil-train-derailment-sparks-massive-fire-article-1.2117374 Pick your poison - pipeline burst or train derailment

Splash Hire with legs - a female DB coach. Now that is innovation

good one - unfortunately, the article didn't see it that way. I don't get the Coolidge reference to NU. Unless they are referring to once Tom left, all hell broke out - we were no longer championship caliber?? If that is the case, unfair slam on Tom.

As one poster after the article states Taft should have been Kansas - with likeness to 2 of their recent coaches: