Raikas

I ruined this shirt for daily wear by washing it in the wrong load a couple of weeks ago, so it's now been downgraded to hiking/climbing gear:

I have the Forerunner 410. I do a lot of hiking/trail running, so having everything mapped out afterwards is my favourite feature, but it's been fantastic for all the standard features as well. My only complaint is the size - the face is huge - but that's a fairly minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

A lot of the hairier guys I run with actually shave around the area so that they can still do the tape there. That said, they're mostly running longer distances, but still - it's not an uncommon thing to see people do, so even if it strikes you as weird at first you wouldn't be alone in doing it.

Oh, no! How did you hurt yourself? Onwards and upwards, once you've recovered, right? To go back to this for a minute: It depends on what you mean by "get you through". If you're putting in the distance week after week, then you can probably get through it (and by "the distance" I mean a base minimum of 50km/week) - but it probably won't feel as good (and you probably won't be as fast) as you would be without a plan. My 59-year-old mother-in-law ran her first half this past May, and her sole training was running 10-15km 5 days/week. She wasn't fast, and she didn't feel great afterwards, but she finished. That said, a plan that actually sees you doing the full distance a few times before the actual race (or at least closer to it, like this plan) is always going to be better than that.

I think most of that is macho posturing - bigger is better and all that. "You ran 30km? Pft! I ran 42!" I do think there's one point that's less about bragging rights and more about reality - people seem to peak at higher ages for the real endurance stuff, so if you're (for example) 35, your peak potential 5km running days have probably passed, whereas the longer the distance, the older you can keep improving (even at the elite level - look at this year's Boston marathon winners - Meb Keflezighi is 38, and the wheelchair winner Ernst van Dyk is 41). And they usually say that the average runner peaks a little later than the elites, so you can imagine people sitting there thinking "I'll qualify once I'm in the next age group..." - I think that drives some of the marathon-pressure as well. I mean, people who only start running at 35 will still improve their 5km time with training, but they'll always have that "If I'd started at 15..." in the back of their minds.

I won a fitbit at a work event a few months back - it's a fun piece of technology, and if you have friends who use it, the connect/community features are fun. I have a Garmin Forerunner, and I've found that the fitbit actually does a decent job of turning the step measurements into distance - it's actually a little on the undercounting side (although obviously it doesn't have the extra features that you have with a GPS-based device). Realistically, as a fitness tool, it's really best for people who are trying to hit general distances, or a certain number of steps/day or who are tracking for basic fitness/weight-loss gains. It's not really detailed enough if you're doing intense time-goal-related running, and it doesn't really meaure things like lifting or yoga or the like. That said, even though I personally don't use mine as a training guide (that's what my Forerunner is for), it's still a lot of fun to have because it's cool to see how incidental movements add to your daily distance, the sleep tracking is interesting, and the competitive bit that you can get going with friends is entertaining. I honestly wouldn't have bought one for myself if I hadn't won it, but I've enjoyed having it more than I ever expected I would.

I'd put in another vote for both (or rather than doing extra on the side, finding some other running group to do your long runs with). Plus, you mentioned that you were excited about the fact that they do competitive 5ks - if you want to join them in that then you'd need to stick with them, right? An as aside - if that distance is their focus, I wondered why you expected them to do longer runs - I certainly know loads of people who train a variety of distances, but they usually also compete at the longer ones. Or does this group do other distance races as well?

Well, this is related to none of my goals, but the husband's paperwork has gone through and next week we'll be house-hunting in the USA. Change! Stress! Excitement!

I've been playing Saints Row IV this past week - not deep, but absurdly fun (and absurdly funny).

Dude, the article mentioned a teenage girl who was involved in school sports and wasn't overweight whose mother sent her to a diet clinic. That's pretty clearly about someone else's issues. Then another poster mentioned people on another forum coming to peace with their expectations for their body - and the immediate response was one of "but it's not impossible". That original comment doesn't read to me as them looking for inspiration, it reads to me as them deciding what they're comfortable with and aiming for that - to come back with "That's a lie!" is throwing their own desires back in their face. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here. I've never had the pleasure of checking out your wife, but I'm sure she's lovely. Either way, my ass is awesome, thanks.

People don't make choices in a vacuum though - we're social animals, after all. Sometimes we choose things based on desires that stem from on other people's needs and/or wants. And that's sometimes a good thing - that's the compromise part of couple relationships, and the respect part of parent-child ones - but it's still more complicated than just being a "you" problem. I do think it's easier to do things you love. I mean, I love being outside and running around with my dog - so the fact that I get in the mileage that I do is easy, at least in the sense of motivation. You love your dance, don't you? That's not even specific to exercise - look at someone learning a language because they've fallen in love (or are in a sudden immersion situation) versus someone who's just trying to get through a required class. It's usually easier for the people who have that extra spark of personal motivation, no? Anyone can get fit or learn a language - and they're both things with huge value - but I'd be lying if I didn't think it's harder for some people. Which isn't to deny that some people make things harder for themselves unnecessarily, because that's fair too. And some people do have natural talents (whether it's at a particular sport or an aptitude for language), after all.

Meh, treats are still food. If a person has trouble with moderation or has trouble analyzing advertising, that's hardly an issue with the existence of junk food in and of itself. Sure, knowledge is power. I don't disagree with that at all. What I take issue with is focusing on the "this is possible!" element when that knowledge is used to pressure people into focusing on something that doesn't necessarily have a personal value for them. Facts are neutral, but it's how they're presented that I think we need to watch. I think this: Is great, but only for those people for whom it was a dream (conscious or unconscious). For other people a focus on "But you could!" isn't anti-defeatist inspiration, it's just a reminder of a way in which they don't measure up.

The article mentioned some clients like that - but it also mentioned teenage athletes whose parents or peers thought they should lose weight. And that's social pressure, not personal desire. I was also responding to the number of comments about "anyone can have beachbody results" - which while true in the sense of being physcially possible, just isn't worth the effort for many people. That's not in any way saying that people shouldn't make time for exercise (or think about what they eat) - but there's a difference between that and the effort/time for an infomercial body. If you want it, it's worth it - but if you only want it because of social pressure, then insisting that they could isn't actually doing something positive for them.

Congratulations!

I think they're tied together though - because I see plenty of people who are happy in their lives and yet talk about weight loss seemingly just because it's assumed that you're supposed to. And again, I'm not talking about fat people, or lazy people. I'm talking people who have acceptable bodies, just not infomercial material. That they could if they made it a major priority isn't a problem, the problem that I see is that they think it's something they should strive for even if it doesn't interest them. If you don't love it, and your lifestyle is already reasonable, I don't see what's wrong with rejecting the idea of that infomerical body with "that's too much work" - because maybe it is. Not in the sense of it being impossible, but just in the sense that it doesn't bring them joy and doesn't give much of a better life. Because while people should take care of themselves, only part of that is physical, y'know? Being aware of that isn't rubbish, and it isn't lying to themselves - if anything, it's about knowing themselves and not wasting energy or stress on something that's social pressure rather than a genuine personal goal.

Again: I'm not talking about people who are fat and/or totally sedentary. I'm talking about people who simply don't have the "beachbody" body and feel fat, but probably aren't. Those people do go to weight loss clinics (and the author talks about people like that in the linked article). ETA: As an aside, I don't see why it's so objectionable to acknowledge that it's easier for some people than others just in the sense of hobbies/interests/natural abilities. That's not in any way saying it's impossible for others, just that it's more of a challenge. For example: I used to go on portage trips with a couple of friends - one of them turned out to have really hideous allergies to certain bug bites, so it's harder for her to go hiking or get on the water during the spring. That doesn't mean she can't do other things, but it does mean she can't do the same outdoorsy stuff. That's a fact. I fail to see what's wrong with having that be a part of the conversation.

Eh, my point is not that it's difficult for people who make it a priority, my point is that people should be able to have other priorities and not be shamed for that. If they want to spend their free time knitting, or volunteering in some sedentary way, those are still activities with value - I think you could argue that they might even have more value if they're contributing something to the community. C'mon now - I'm not talking about people who don't have time for that! No wonder you're snarking that I'm talking "rubbish". The "beachbody" look was specifically mentioned here - not some general "not fat" state. I don't know anyone who doesn't get at least that much exercise (frankly, almost everyone I know gets more than that just by walking their dog or taking their kids to the park, or walking to the subway or train station). I'm talking about people who aren't going to get to the next level without shifting their priorities in ways that are perhaps not in line with their own values. If you're looking at an obese and lazy person, then yeah - but talking about someone who's pressured to be a little less chubby when they're not totally inactive and just want to do other things - those two groups are not identical. To be clear: I am not saying busy people can't find time to exercise. I'm saying a lot of people who are reasonably healthy but don't have that infomerical body are made to feel like they're inferior for not putting in that work - and that focus on choice is just as insulting as some Fat Acceptance person acting like there's no choice at all. ETA: I think it's only in extremes where the choices are as simple as exercise vs. "stuff your face" - that's all I'm saying. I didn't say that there weren't. What I'm saying is that I think we need to be careful to not act as though the choice to exercise X amount or to eat Y amount isn't held up as being one of the most important choices a person can make. Because there's a lot more to life than that.

What gets me on these things is the value judgements that are put on people because of this - because I tend to agree that a lot of the FA/HAES stuff is too far in the opposite direction, but it probably wouldn't have gone there is there wasn't anything to react to, you know? I do see people who choose to be lazy - guys who give up a sport for watching TV and gain a gut, or people who retire and replace their active work time with sitting around doing crossword puzzles - but are they the majority of the people who aren't where they want to be? Because I also see just as many people who are unfit primarily because they're just really constricted when it comes to time (people who spend 2+ hours a day commuting, sedentary jobs, and family demands). So while that's still distinct from the claim that fitness/weight loss in unattainable in the sense of being physically impossible, I do see a fair number of people whose lifestyles genuinely do make it harder than it is for people with different commitments (and sure, it's a choice to work a sedentary job, to live in the suburbs, to have loads of kids or to drive around elderly relatives but it's still more complicated* than move vs. not move). *And by complicated, I mean from a schedule-balancing perspective, not a conceptual one. Obviously "move your body" is a simple idea, but it's a lot simpler for someone like me (virtually no commute, a flexible job and a group of family and friends who enjoy a lot of outdoors/sporting-type activities) than it is for those 3/hours in the car 8/hours at a desk folks.

Seriously? You consider a tattoo to be in the same category as protected classes? Seriously? Well, I commented that our salespeople don't have a dress code, but that their way of dress seems to determine their success. So in this case, if they're successful, they'll be kept on. Full stop. People who play the game seem to do better, but the possibility is there for someone to do it differently - it just hasn't happened yet. In a place with a dress code? Then they knew about it when they agreed to work there, and by choosing to violate that then they're asking to get fired, yes. I've been at workplaces that prohibited things like the use of social media during work hours - I think that's a silly rule, so I choose not to work at places like that. Same thing - a choice. If you knowingly violate the rules of your workplace, you shouldn't be surprised if it has an impact on your career.

Updates: Rings work: not seeing a lot of progress, but also haven't felt as beaten by any of it as I did the first day, so... dunno. Actually that's not quite true - the # of reps for everything this week is +2 over the earlier ones, so I guess there is. Hmm. Baking: I make a giant cookie-cake last week, but that's been the extent of it. Course work: of the three I've been watching, I dropped one. Another ends this week, so that'll be one checkmark at least! Language play: have some non-English comics sitting in my "to read" pile.

People don't have to - there are other jobs, other career tracks that don't involve customer-facing work. The customer wants to feel like the company representative understands them, and that's part of the job. And for non customer facing positions where there's the internal teamwork/presentation side, dressing the part (whether it's a suit in the corporate world, or something funky in a more creative position) is part of showing that you've done your research. It shows that you're willing to put in the work, because dressing the part is work - that's the whole point. It shows that you're putting the company's needs ahead of your own. Again: not every company requires that, so there needn't be all the drama about hiding the true self - it's a choice.

Congrats on taking the jump! And on not being eaten by a shark!

Because in any job that involves connections with other people, connecting with a wide variety of people is part of the job. And if you want to work in those fields, then you need to play the game. And it's not just a suit and tie - you wouldn't show up for a construction job in a tie and dress shoes and expect not to be sent home (or at least out to buy some safety boots), would you? That some standards are more random than "safety requirements" is still a little arbitrary, yes - but there are historical reasons for that, and knowing that history is part of showing that you're a team player. And again, not every job needs a customer-facing team player, but if that's the job you're aiming for then you need to act like it. Hang on now - tattoos and piercings are choices people make. They're decorations. In my example upthread, did you read the bit about how people's colour/gender/accent/disability changed the way they dress? Those things all still matter - they shouldn't, but they do. And if someone is going to judge based on appearance, at least making that judgement based on a choice that the person made is going to be a hell of a lot more meaningful than things that just are.

Yeah, obviously your body belongs to you, but I do think other people's opinions do have a bearing on what you should do with it, at least if you have reasonable relationships with them and aren't independently wealthy. Should they have the final say? No, of course not - but if a tattoo is going to get you fired (and you need the job) or upset your grandmother (and you care about her opinion), what's so terrible about covering up? I work for a very large company - I see plenty of visible tattoos (and a variety of not-quite-standard business attire) in the office - on the internal HR folks, the IT folks, the arts and marketing design ones, the call centre drones and so on. But not in the retail offices - they all dress very business casual and stylistically neutral. And especially not the corporate sales guys, who all wear suits. And none of these people have dress codes - but the ones whose living is based on impressing other people need to actually impress other people. I spent 6 months in an office with the corporate sales guys, and it was fascinating to see how the people who didn't match the stereotype of the proper Canadian sales man would dress even better than the ones with more social power - Guys who were either white or east Asian with Canadian or British accents sometimes went without jackets or ties, but the ones with foreign accents always wore the jacket. The south Asian guys, the black guys with Canadian accents and the women all wore jackets and ties (or scarves for the women). And finally the black guys with accents and the one guy in a wheelchair wore jackets, ties and french cuffs. And again: no dress code. The company doesn't ask them to dress a certain way. But they all did it anyway because how they dressed had a concrete effect on their sales. And since covering up a tattoo is generally easier than covering up your colour/gender/accent/wheelchair (and if it's not because it's on a hand or face, that was ultimately still a choice), I just don't see why people take such offense at the idea that they might need to do that to be successful at certain specific jobs.

This is me as well. I honestly don't see much benefit to being an early adopter when it comes to new consoles - I always wait for (at least) the first big price drop. By that point they've generally worked out most of the bugs and built up a decent library of titles. There will certainly be plenty of PC games and last-gen titles to keep me entertained in the meantime. ETA: which doesn't actually answer the title question! Heh. Realistically, I suppose I'll end up with both - I don't have any kind of loyalty to corporations, so it's just a matter of them having exclusives that I'm interested in at some point.