Beware "My Millionaire Friend"

[Atlantea]

cool.

My derailment of the derailment got derailed....

Do I get the redundant badge for that?

A Møøse once bit my sister...

[Atlantea]

Due to a bug in the badge system, you will currently be awarded the Redundant badge with unaltered flavor text.

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"...

[Atlantea]

While off topic discussion is healthy for a community remaining friendly, I think this topic has veered so far away from something belonging in the "Save Paragon City!" part of the forum that I think it might be best to either start a new thread elsewhere, or drop the topic.

Its just getting a little out of hand...

We apologize for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

[Mister Bison]

Absolute rubbish.

To maintain a weight of 280 lbs requires more calories than to maintain a weight of 180 assuming similar lifestyle.

Somebody weighing 280, eating the amount of calories required to maintain 180 will lose weight.

I know, I've lost nearly 40 lbs eating more calories than my more active friend who's steady at about half my weight.

I'd guess it depends on the lifestyle, actually. Considering calorie is needed for three things: chemical activity (also called metabolism, including food processing, heat, and baseline living), physical activity, and brain activity.

Normally brain activity is the same for everybody, or is in a baseline. You don't really burn less calorie when you think less, you just get fatigued more or less rapidly.

What's different in a "thin" person and a "fat" person, is heat dispersion. If you look at a person with thermal vision, you'll notice thin people tend to let go of more heat than fat people (if you've got some fat, you could also get naked a bit and touch it after an hour, it'll be colder than no-fat places, for instance, under your arm, even if you let it lifted so that heat doesn't build up). Don't underestimate our hot-bloodness, it does burn a lot of calories, as scientists will tell you, why are insects, fishes and in a less meaningful manner bird, more efficient at producing meat than cattle (cows, sheep, etc), is that they are cold-blooded, less wasted calories into heat !

For physical activity (even walking), a fat person is going to expend more than a thin one. I think you all get the point.

So if the lifestyle is more car-desk-car-telly-bed than walk-stand-walk-jog-bed, it does put one more at a drain here.

I'm also putting under the carpet the fact that muscles drain more than fat to "live", and that cold food doesn't give all its calories than hot because the body has to heat it. Or how much coffee/tea you're drinking instead of cold water.

[Osborn]

I'd guess it depends on the lifestyle, actually. Considering calorie is needed for three things: chemical activity (also called metabolism, including food processing, heat, and baseline living), physical activity, and brain activity.

Normally brain activity is the same for everybody, or is in a baseline. You don't really burn less calorie when you think less, you just get fatigued more or less rapidly.

What's different in a "thin" person and a "fat" person, is heat dispersion. If you look at a person with thermal vision, you'll notice thin people tend to let go of more heat than fat people (if you've got some fat, you could also get naked a bit and touch it after an hour, it'll be colder than no-fat places, for instance, under your arm, even if you let it lifted so that heat doesn't build up). Don't underestimate our hot-bloodness, it does burn a lot of calories, as scientists will tell you, why are insects, fishes and in a less meaningful manner bird, more efficient at producing meat than cattle (cows, sheep, etc), is that they are cold-blooded, less wasted calories into heat !

For physical activity (even walking), a fat person is going to expend more than a thin one. I think you all get the point.

So if the lifestyle is more car-desk-car-telly-bed than walk-stand-walk-jog-bed, it does put one more at a drain here.

I'm also putting under the carpet the fact that muscles drain more than fat to "live", and that cold food doesn't give all its calories than hot because the body has to heat it. Or how much coffee/tea you're drinking instead of cold water.

Birds aren't cold blooded.

[Mister Bison]

Birds aren't cold blooded.

I know, but feathers really shield them well, and while hot blooded, don't need to heat as much. Birds forked from reptiles eons ago, they aren't that far.

That's why governments sometimes fund house isolation... ;) Because that's a waste of energy for the same result ;)

[srmalloy]

I know, but feathers really shield them well, and while hot blooded, don't need to heat as much. Birds forked from reptiles eons ago, they aren't that far.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti...

[tymothymichel]

To go way completely off topic....I'm surprised that ncs never offered the "lifetime membership" option that sto, lotro and secret world all have, they could have sold the idea twice and made a bang up profit, rather than just shutting down as they did. Pity it wasn't at the very least on the table...

[Perfidus]

They never did it because typically a lifetime membership is offered at, or near, launch. And CoH launched in 2004. While 2004 was not the birth of MMOs, it surely was its infancy. Things like lifetime memberships never computed.

On a side note... really? Really...? You're asking why they didn't find a way to take -more- money from us before they shut down? Lifetime memberships or not, they were going to shut down once whatever higher up in NCSoft decided it to be so. Suggesting they should've had lifetime subs wouldn't have fixed that. It only would've ensured we gave money to a company we didn't like.

[Atlantea]

To go way completely off topic....I'm surprised that ncs never offered the "lifetime membership" option that sto, lotro and secret world all have, they could have sold the idea twice and made a bang up profit, rather than just shutting down as they did. Pity it wasn't at the very least on the table...

Møøse trained by YUTTE HERMSGERVØRDENBRØTBØRDA

[Ice Trix]

Somebody please PM me with the link!

Web searching 419 eaters will get you one of the most popular sites.

[corvus1970]

We apologize for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.

Ahhh, Monty Python quotes :)

[Starsman]

I'm not debating that, I just didn't want to turn the post into a science lecture and for most intents and purposes what both of us said for the layman are the same.

Thing is your post seems to perpetuate a myth that fat is bad. Fat is actually very good for you.

The problem is that not everybody has the time or money or even health education to eat 'according to their lifestyle' when you get BS marketing like 'Organic' and super duper cheap processed foods like Stars was talking about thrown into the equation.

You can eat still duper-cheap and eat low carb diets. You don't have to be organic on everything, just cutting back on carb foods (unless you happen to be a football player or bodybuilder.) Sure, not everyone has the education, but that's the bit where I feel triggered to bring around these topics when I see them. People should learn how much harm carb saturated foods (bread/pasta/rice/etc) are for the average body.

It's also not about "organic" (although it helps at a whole other level.) Hardest bit with a natural carb diet (where you get carbs only from fruit and vegetables) is that it means you MUST cook and prepare your food regularly. It's not expensive, but it can be time consuming. It's so easy to just buy bread, slice it and stick stuff in the middle...

Add to the fact that getting fat is super easy to do but the more fat you are the more difficult it is to stop being that, it's not a very easy situation for many people.

If someone can get over the laziness of preparing the food (even knowing it well I myself fail A LOT) then its rather easy to lose weight (with some exceptions, some people do have true and honest genetic disorders, but the cases are not as common as  you would think by looking at the average American weight.) It's VERY hard to gain weight when your diet is entirely composed of fruit, vegetables and meats (fish/chicken/prok/beef/etc.)

BTW, not advocating a pure meat diet either, that is also not healthy. Now if you excuse me, it's lunch time and I'm going to go get me a greasy burger, bread and all :P (just like smoking, at least I KNOW I'm killing me ;))

*yea 5 days late reply, trying to lay low in the forum stuff*

[Osborn]

Thing is your post seems to perpetuate a myth that fat is bad. Fat is actually very good for you.

I'm not. I specifically said we evolved to have a taste for fat which was good for you when fat was not overly abundant and the cheapest foods weren't processed. I'm not saying that 'fat' is bad for you inherently, just that your body is designed to deal with a scarcity that is no longer as much a problem for most people.

That's not super controversial, that's like saying that adrenaline isn't very helpful in dealing with being yelled at, at work by an angry customer or something. Sure, in ancient times, adrenaline when you're stressed was useful, but the flight or fight response isn't so great when your source of stress is your job. Don't take the implication of 'taste for fat when you're drowning in fat' to mean that fat, by itself in moderation is instantly bad for you.

I'm actually against 'banning' of fat in foods, or 'banning' of soft drinks and stuff like that. I think it's actually kinda foolish to ban something we've eaten for thousands of years when we, let's be honest, don't understand nutrition that much at all anyways.

It's also not about "organic" (although it helps at a whole other level.) Hardest bit with a natural carb diet (where you get carbs only from fruit and vegetables) is that it means you MUST cook and prepare your food regularly. It's not expensive, but it can be time consuming. It's so easy to just buy bread, slice it and stick stuff in the middle...

This is what I'm talking about before, especially when it comes to lack of education. We've been taught for pretty much ever that the 'base' of the 'food pyramid' is bread. I bet there's some people who put bread around cooked foods anyways, just because they think they need more carbohydrates because that's 'grain'. Do you see what I was getting at?

If someone can get over the laziness of preparing the food (even knowing it well I myself fail A LOT) then its rather easy to lose weight (with some exceptions, some people do have true and honest genetic disorders, but the cases are not as common as  you would think by looking at the average American weight.) It's VERY hard to gain weight when your diet is entirely composed of fruit, vegetables and meats (fish/chicken/pork/beef/etc.)

Again, it's not that easy to buy good vegetables and meats when you're food insecure, nor is it always possible to set aside a specific meal time when you're on-call 24/7 because your job's too crappy to give you a week to week schedule.

Your body will actually become 'accustomed' to terrible foods until it actively becomes difficult to eat actual real food.

BTW, not advocating a pure meat diet either, that is also not healthy. Now if you excuse me, it's lunch time and I'm going to go get me a greasy burger, bread and all :P (just like smoking, at least I KNOW I'm killing me ;))

*yea 5 days late reply, trying to lay low in the forum stuff*

Nobody was suggesting that because you felt that something in moderation was good that you felt that it was all bad. In the same way me saying that drowning yourself in fat is bad doesn't mean that we should ban it or whatever.

[Starsman]

I'm not. I specifically said we evolved to have a taste for fat which was good for you when fat was not overly abundant and the cheapest foods weren't processed. I'm not saying that 'fat' is bad for you inherently, just that your body is designed to deal with a scarcity that is no longer as much a problem for most people.

There it is again :P

Here is the thing: you can eat insane amounts of fat. You will either pass the unnecessary amount through or puke (very likely the later) but it's very hard to eat too much fat. Eating too much carbs, though, is too easy. Given how rare they used to be (much more rare than fat since we were hunters first, foragers second) we evolved to absorb most those sugars. It gets complex after this, I don't have the full vocabulary to explain it, but my point was precisely that our bodies did not really evolve to be fat-crazy, they evolved to be sugar-crazy. They are two very different things, but your paragraph would be perfect if you replace the word "fat" with "sugar" or "carb"

Carb-rich foods became a standard with the start of farming, but that was only 12,500 years ago. That's hardly enough time for evolution to adapt us to either handle sugar better or not crave it so badly. Technically, diabetes is evolution's way of making that happen.

That is the bit that is controversial, the idea that fat is not bad for you even in large quantities and that the every-day amount of bread and other carb rich food we eat is bad for nearly everyone.

we, let's be honest, don't understand nutrition that much at all anyways.

We understand more than is out there. There is too much that does not make the rounds due to how it will affect established industries.

Not too long ago O'Reilly publicly made a statement on how eliminating certain grain based foods from his diet yielded drastic improvements on his health, something anyone that has studied diabetes and heart conditions deeply enough would confirm is very "obvious". Didn't take long for the farming industry to start countering his statements, trying to say he must  have done something else or something else was wrong with the guy's health, that he can't claim the removal of grain food from a diet can actually help anyone's health, etc etc. Didn't follow the whole thing to see if O'Reilly ever replied to those claims. But yea, it IS a bit of a controversy (at least for those that are paying attention to it.)

Nobody was suggesting that because you felt that something in moderation was good that you felt that it was all bad. In the same way me saying that drowning yourself in fat is bad doesn't mean that we should ban it or whatever.

I didn't mean to say you implied that. I stated that because there is a group of people that is also obsessed with the "Atkins Diet" of "pure meats, zero carb from any source." You can lose insane amounts of weight on the diet, but you also deprive the body of essential vitamins and nutriets.

BTW, not the healthiest approach (and I would do this if my wife tolerated it) but you can pursue a low carb diet with ready-to-eat frozen meats and even in fast foods by making sure they give you the food without bread. You can even order the burger without the buns at a BK or McDonalds, skip on the fries and get either water or diet soda.

[Minotaur]

Starsman, what you propose (almost eliminating carbs) is the American orthodoxy, but you'll find British doctors prescribe VERY differently. I'm a type 2 diabetic, and eat a low sugar but pretty normal complex carb, lowish fat diet which is working well. The key for me is simply calories not carbs and hence portion control.

[Starsman]

Starsman, what you propose (almost eliminating carbs) is the American orthodoxy, but you'll find British doctors prescribe VERY differently. I'm a type 2 diabetic, and eat a low sugar but pretty normal complex carb, lowish fat diet which is working well. The key for me is simply calories not carbs and hence portion control.

I don't propose eliminating carbs, just making sure the sources of carbs are exclusively from fruit and vegetables (occasionally moderate amounts of rice and potato/sweetpotato are also alright but grain based sources should be eliminated entirely.)

BTW, it's not an American thing (what I propose) in fact, most "accepted and established" treatments in the US also still follow what you just said. That's why I said a few times there is a controversy too, there is a lot of holdout from old statistical correlation that condemns fat as being evil, and simply established practitioners vs active and new research discoveries.

Actually, my wife is not American either, she is Georgian, and her boss (the lead of the hospital and the whole diabetes research) is British. Not that nationality has much change on the validity, but just correcting the perception you may have assumed from my post that this is an American mindset.

Anyways, a lot of the things I'm mentioning MAY actually do some changes in core mandated educational programs (like that food pyramid thing) in the next few decades, but given how resistant people can be about new knowledge (especially smart people like doctors that tend to be arrogant and may not accept any study they were not part of) this stuff can take a few decades to spread out.

Edit to add: Mind you, things depend heavily on the specific case. Type of diabetes, how long you have it, how has it developed, how far it has developed, etc. For the most part I understand almost every case of type 2 is developed due to diet, and could be entirely prevented by eliminating grain and other forms of raw sugar from your diet, but once you have the condition it becomes more complex, so don't take what I say here as medical advice! (I'm sure you are smarter than that but felt I had to update this post with the disclaimer, in case of silent lurkers reading it.)

[Osborn]

I'm done with the dietary talk, so you guys debate that among yourselves.

They never did it because typically a lifetime membership is offered at, or near, launch. And CoH launched in 2004. While 2004 was not the birth of MMOs, it surely was its infancy. Things like lifetime memberships never computed.

On a side note... really? Really...? You're asking why they didn't find a way to take -more- money from us before they shut down? Lifetime memberships or not, they were going to shut down once whatever higher up in NCSoft decided it to be so. Suggesting they should've had lifetime subs wouldn't have fixed that. It only would've ensured we gave money to a company we didn't like.

Yeah, if CoH had lifetime subscriptions it would had basically been giving NCSoft more of our money before they closed the game down on us.

It's natural to think, when something like this happens like "How could we had supported the game more? Could I had given more to prevent this!", and maybe wise to think if a game shuts down due to it not making money, but we gotta remember that this game was shut down for reasons other than it not making money. Whatever they may be, as we don't really know for sure.

I think if CoH had adopted Lifetime Subscriptions in 2004, it's not like the game would still be alive right now. There'd just be a small group of people who dumped even MORE money into NCSoft's coffers who got their game closed down on them.

All accounts suggest that the game was making money AND that the switch to Free to Play had increased cash coming in. All evidence suggest that as far as the guys actually 'hands on' with the game, they expected it to continue at least for the foreseeable future, and were busy pumping out loads of new content and power sets and salable items.

That's not something you do if you've been running in the red for a long time, unless there was some suspicious insider trading going on.

[tymothymichel]

They never did it because typically a lifetime membership is offered at, or near, launch. And CoH launched in 2004. While 2004 was not the birth of MMOs, it surely was its infancy. Things like lifetime memberships never computed.

On a side note... really? Really...? You're asking why they didn't find a way to take -more- money from us before they shut down? Lifetime memberships or not, they were going to shut down once whatever higher up in NCSoft decided it to be so. Suggesting they should've had lifetime subs wouldn't have fixed that. It only would've ensured we gave money to a company we didn't like.

All I know, before you return to being snarky, is that if games that were released in 2001 say like anarchy online are still up and running, I think that if they had offered a lifetime membership, it may have been enough of an incentive to let a server stay online even if there were no updates. Just to keep the lifetimers happy. I know you're upset with ncs, all of us are. No reason to bite a guy's head off, just saying.

[Ironwolf]

I can give you my dietary changes that helped me lose 45 pounds so far in the last 6 months.

1. eat protein early in the day - in fact I eat 2 ground turkey patties most mornings for breakfast and a glass of juice either orange or grape.
2. Brunch 10 am or so some nuts or fruit (I like water melon)
3. Lunch usually have a peanut butter and jam sandwich with fruit. Drink water or milk.
4. Dinner eat steak, chicken, fish or venison. I also have a large helping of vegatables.

Take a multivitamin and a BCAA (branch chain amino acid) and the weight will start to fall off slowly. I don't ever look at calories - I look at salt content. If you keep salt under 1800mg a day (with the occasionaly pizza binge) you will lose weight as it limits how much junk you can eat.

I now get almost everyone saying holy cow you look good now. I went from 286 to 241 in 6 months and it seemed effortless. The other trick - walk, just walk and relax for 30 minutes a day on top of the diet changes and you will be amazed at how quickly your body changes. i have always been the large hulking body builder type and now I look like the typical MMA fighter type. Tight and slim is a better look in my eyes especially as I am now 53.