Jump to content
Da_Latios

"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

Recommended Posts

 

By the time you're in your 60s and beyond you'll probably have a much lower sex drive and be more willing/capable of settling down with a less attractive woman.

 

But until then...

Wrong: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/shhhhsex-doesnt-stop-in-your-60s/

 

I don't think he said sex drive disappears, he said it lessens...which is true. According to that link you posted, 1/10 seniors want a new sexual relationship. for people 18-40 that's probably more like 1 in 3 lol.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

By the time you're in your 60s and beyond you'll probably have a much lower sex drive and be more willing/capable of settling down with a less attractive woman.

 

But until then...

Wrong: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/archive/shhhhsex-doesnt-stop-in-your-60s/

 

I don't think he said sex drive disappears, he said it lessens...which is true. According to that link you posted, 1/10 seniors want a new sexual relationship. for people 18-40 that's probably more like 1 in 3 lol.

 

He said a much lower sex drive. I hate to use semantics but, I was merely questioning the extent that muggi seems to think it lessens. Elderly people have sex, it's a massive taboo but it when you look at the statistics, you realise it's really not that weird of an idea to get your head around.

 

Either way, we're moving away from the point. By all means, finish a relationship because the 'spark' isn't there any more, although maybe you should at least make an effort to find it again. But to finish with someone simply because they grow old is asinine, so long as humans are incapable of slowing the aging process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i mentioned before, age is unavoidable. I won't leave someone for their age. It's a natural process, getting fat isn't. Especially if you gain weight because of laziness. From age 10 - 20 i spent 3 - 5 hours 5 - 6 days a week on the tennis court and on the track field. I worked hard to maintain my figure by eating right. Sure, i did go through a phase of eating a lot of junk food, but i did what was needed to get rid of the shit in my body. The problem is that people take more calories than they need to, sit on the couch expecting to lose it and then this (points to RPG's question below) becomes their most convenient excuse.

 

 

What if she has a thyroid issue? Shit looks a lot like obesity

 

If it's a thyroid issue i want medical tests stating it. If it can't be medically proven by her, i'll assume she's being a lazy shit.

I just can't tolerate people who are overweight. I'm not sure why, but it frustrates the shit out of me. As i have said before, if i can keep a good figure then anyone can. Unless you have some sort of physical disability that prevents it, in which case i would understand.

 

When i went to the US i was disgusted in the majority of people who went to fast food franchises. More than half of the people i saw there should be eating nothing but celary sticks and drinking water.

I do not discriminate against them for being fat, i discriminate against them for being lazy and calling it an "illness" or "disease".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i mentioned before, age is unavoidable. I won't leave someone for their age. It's a natural process, getting fat isn't. Especially if you gain weight because of laziness. From age 10 - 20 i spent 3 - 5 hours 5 - 6 days a week on the tennis court and on the track field. I worked hard to maintain my figure by eating right. Sure, i did go through a phase of eating a lot of junk food, but i did what was needed to get rid of the shit in my body. The problem is that people take more calories than they need to, sit on the couch expecting to lose it and then this (points to RPG's question below) becomes their most convenient excuse.

I didn't ask if you'd leave someone for their age, I asked if you find old people attractive.

 

There's also a big difference between being in shape and having a good figure. I can have a good figure if I sit indoors all the time and eat 1000 calories a day. Doesn't mean I'm healthy.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skinny people look good in clothes but fit people look good naked.


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response was taken the wrong way as I thought it might get taken. The reason why I brought up thermodynamics is to say whats wrong with the dietary advice.

 

To start humans are not a closed system, so entropy applies. Another thing wrong with dietary advice is eat less/exercise more is a great way to gain weight. Your rate of energy consumption varies based on your calorie intake. Or in other words, eat less and you will want to do less and eat more.* This is the main reason why 98% of diets fail and people end up gaining 10 pounds after their diet failed.

 

*I dont have the numbers here but this is a differential equation so it would be quite messy

 

Now back to entropy:

 

Calories in = calories out + entropy

 

Carbs = 98% + entropy

Protein = 70% + entropy

 

Eat 1k calories of carbs and you get 980 transfered to usable work with the rest lost as heat, eat 1k calories of protien and only 700 calories transferred to work. Meaning protein heavy diets would be almost 30% more efficient then carb based diets on that alone. Of course there is loads more to this. But thats the idea of the tragedy of Scientific Illiteracy in America. People literally set up diets that will inevitably gain weight, backed by people calling them lazy [wagon] if they don't approach it that way.

 

EXCERCISE IS NOT TO LOSE WEIGHT, IT IS TO IMPROVE YOUR STRENGTH AND HEALTH AND SHAPE. A pound of muscle and a pound of fat still weigh a pound, but muscle is more dense, and more attractive because your shape is more defined. Exercise for form and strength not a goddamn number. Your goal should be to bench press a certain amount of weight, not to be a certain weight when going to the gym.

 

 

I think the weight loss industry is a better indicator of how lazy and entitled the average American is lol

 
Yes but not for the reason's you think. It comes down to no one being willing to understand the physics of diet and corporations like Pepsi playing a major part in government health programs like the food pyramid giving information to promote their products. To understand whats causing the obesity epidemic you have to look at a what foods we eat now compared to the 70's and how much of each type of food do we eat now. Whats interesting is we eat less saturated fats now and exponentially more sugar in all sorts of forms now than then. 
 
Which would make sense on given the equations I gave before about carbs (sugar) transfer to more usable units of work (stored calories) than protein (normally from animals = saturated fats). 
 
 

There's some merit to that, but understand that there are limits to the human body. While I'm also an advocate of human will power and strength of mind over matter, there are something that can not be overcome through sheer positivity. Hormone imbalances may prevent consistent happiness and stability. Thyroid problems may inhibit healthy phyical appearance. Will power can absolutely overcome these issues to an extent, but you can only work with the tools given to you.

 
The unfortunate reality is that sexual attractiveness is largely a measure of health. A thyroid condition has physical manifestations of poor health. Luckily you can get the hormone situation sorted out by an endocrinologist. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a certain extent only. Hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism tend to be long-term conditions which present with a complex array of interacting symptoms. The problem is you're treating human beings like machines. Human A has Condition B and takes Drug C because it worked on Human D.  It doesn't work as simply as that, and if you want, I can point you to a good dozen or so authors, who are all much more clever than me, who would back that assertion up with clinical evidence. There's a very wide range of factors which impact on a person's susceptibility to disease, and which also impact on how that disease presents and affects that individual's life.

 

I also disagree with your assertion that exercise doesn't help someone lose weight. In fact, I don't simply disagree, I know you're wrong there with 99.999% confidence. I wouldn't recommend to someone with a BMI of > 30 that they should be training weights; they need to lose the excess weight first, and strength training won't help with that. They should lose weight with anaerobic and cardiovascular exercises first until they're approaching a healthy weight, and then do strength training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heart is a muscle so I glossed over cardiovascular training as something separate from bicep training. Yeah excercise will help you lose weight and lowering your calorie intake will too. But at the cost of less energy to do this. I don't think you realize that in every human trial where people volunteer to try out weight loss programs and are placed on calorie lowering diets and increases in physical activity they do lose weight while on that strict program. Their metabolic rate drops as the calorie intake drops though and in some of these studies they would have to be under 1000 calorie diets to lose weight still. Even with strict supervised training and diets, our bodies really do use energy at a rate related to that which we gain energy. The worst part is that across the board you always would see these individuals return to their original weight + 10% after the diets are over. 

 

An extreme example of this is with studies on a huge number of species besides humans (for humanitarian reasons) were placed on near starvation diets and their metabolic rate decreased and their life expectancy increased by 30%. This also ties into species size and life expectancy being related to metabolic rates and even heart rates. You should check out klieber's law. 

 

 



Kleiber's law, named after Max Kleiber's biological work in the early 1930s, is the observation that, for the vast majority of animals, an animal's metabolic rate scales to the ¾ power of the animal's mass. Symbolically: if q0 is the animal's metabolic rate, and M the animal's mass, then Kleiber's law states that q0 ~ M¾. Thus a cat, having a mass 100 times that of a mouse, will have a metabolism roughly 31 times greater than that of a mouse. In plants, the exponent is close to 1.

 

 
Anyways thats a pretty bold and naive statement to say that the human metabolic rate isn't related to the calorie intake rate. Its late for me but when you look at humans in starvation conditions and you look at their metabolic rate they are clearly related to each other. The best example I can come up with is it would be similar to newton's law of cooling. Newtons-law-of-cooling-derived.gif
Where the differences between the ambient temperature and the tempature of the object's rate of change is related to the difference between each other. I'm not expecting you to give me numbers, because I'm not giving you numbers - I want you to give me a practical example where eat less/excercise more alone has worked long term. 
 
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point of diets is to stick to them, not to inevitably stop putting your body through ideal habits.

 

But this is far far away from my area of expertise.


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to get a bit too far off topic >_>

 

Granted, this thread's also the unofficial "let's dissect social norms and beliefs" thread :lol:


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B'aww as a Biochemist who has some understanding of human metabolism, I feel what Ring World was saying is slightly off.

 

In regards to the original argument (from what I gather). The statement "I cannot lose weight". Ring World felt that such statement is obviously incorrect due to a thermodynamic explanation that if Caloric Input < Caloric Output = Caloric Loss, thus the body enters a "starvation state". I ofcourse haven't read what anyone else has said on this matter.

 

Human metabolism isn't directly controlled by the caloric intake and physical activity. Hormones mostly dictate how the fuel (The food and energy reserves we have within the body) is metabolised. Humans with leptin resistance (the hormone which signals to our brain that our stomach is full) are prone to over-eating, simply because the hormone is unable to signal to the brain that the stomach is full. On the otherside - Humans that produce an excess of ghrelin would find that they are irrationally hungry despite the fact they may have had recently eaten a substantial meal - and will overeat too.

 

I define obesity as "an imbalance between food intake and energy expenditure". And I strongly believe that majority of all obesity cases (the imbalance) are the result of the abnormal regulation of hormones.

 

Furthermore, caloric intake is controlled by physical exertion and diet-induced thermogenesis. In normal humans, the fat stores remain constant, but obviously as physical exertion decreases the fuel stores will begin to develop. During starvation, the body utilizes these fuel stores, glycogen and fat. After prolonged starvation - protein is metabolised to provide ketone bodies.

 

If *you* can manage a calorie-restricted diet, good for you. But understand that physiologically (endocrinologically) speaking you are likely to be somewhat different to an obese individual. And thus it is likely harder for an obese individual to lose weight. Am I saying all obese people have abnormal endocrines? Sure, shoot me.

 

But yes, Caloric restriction and increased physical exertion will inevitably lead to weight loss. But it isn't as simple as a thermodynamic problem. 

  • Like 2

Luck be a Lady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borris i said what you said. With thermodynamics as a jusification about why starvation diets dont work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Borris i said what you said. With thermodynamics as a jusification about why starvation diets dont work

I wouldn't dismiss starvation diets, they do work. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2466480/pdf/postmedj00373-0059.pdf

 

The article may be 40 years old, but that isn't a reason to dismiss it.  :P

 

I think there is that "lighter life" weight loss program too that has been floating around. One of my highschool teachers did it over the summer, none of his suits fit after, he looked too skinny.


Luck be a Lady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand allosexual people.


My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't even know what that means

  • Like 3

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 wouldn't dismiss starvation diets, they do work. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2466480/pdf/postmedj00373-0059.pdf

 

The article may be 40 years old, but that isn't a reason to dismiss it.  :P

Not necessarily from a logical point of view, but it can be. It is a reason if there's a newer diet/exercise programme for losing weight which has been shown in clinical trials to be more effective than starvation diets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand allosexual people.

And what is it about is that you don't understand?

 

Based on this definition.

Allosexual is a word, most probably made by the ace community, to describe someone who isn’t asexual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm not attracted to slightly overweight women, therefore thermodynamics."


My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends how overweight. slightly overweight is often okay (emphasizes womanly bodily characteristics)

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I have a problem with. The problem I have is that you all immediately jumped to defending that lack of attraction with no one disagreeing with you, using absolutely ludicrous arguments.

 

Mostly I just don't understand the idea of leaving someone you're romantically attracted to over the fact that you're not sexually attracted to them, but that's why I don't understand allosexuals in general.


My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I have a problem with. The problem I have is that you all immediately jumped to defending that lack of attraction with no one disagreeing with you, using absolutely ludicrous arguments.

 

Mostly I just don't understand the idea of leaving someone you're romantically attracted to over the fact that you're not sexually attracted to them, but that's why I don't understand allosexuals in general.

Just because no one's arguing with him doesn't mean everyone agrees. The reason I don't bother arguing is because we've already had all of these discussions and they don't go anywhere.

 

Also, what is an allosexual, and why are you implying I'm one?


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like my women like I like my metal.

 

...

 

Black and heavy

  • Like 2

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I have a problem with. The problem I have is that you all immediately jumped to defending that lack of attraction with no one disagreeing with you, using absolutely ludicrous arguments.

 

Mostly I just don't understand the idea of leaving someone you're romantically attracted to over the fact that you're not sexually attracted to them, but that's why I don't understand allosexuals in general.

 

Because dating someone your not sexually attracted to is like dating your sister and for a lot of people relationships are the means by which they express their sexuality. For those people who use relationships to express their sexuality it doesnt make sense to me to stick around with someone you are not sexually attracted to anymore. Though I think muggi has mentioned making a relationship like that into an open relationship. I guess I'm curious as an asexual what your opinion is about open relationships if your dating someone who has normal to high sex drive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.