It may not be negligible and it’s certainly better from an overall health standpoint. However, when you look at the massive swing a change in diet can make I don’t think large amounts of time are required for weight loss.
I don’t know about anyone else, but exercise makes me feel good about my body. When I feel good about my body, I don’t want to screw it up by eating junk food, so I eat better, too.
There are a lot of overated things in this world. Exercise isn’t one of them, IMO.
It does if it violates the First Law.
First, stop putting words in my mouth.
Second, of course I would say it, if they claimed “I eat 10,000 calories a day and work it all off!” The problem is I’ve not seen anyone do that. Plus the fact that some people on extreme regimens do burn an assload of calories; take the estimates of Lewis and Clark’s caloric intake done in a recent study, or Michael Phelps’ typical daily meals.
OK! Let’s try that one on then. “In my own, personal, individual circumstances, angels tell me the right lottery numbers to pick, and I always win!” Yup, not our concern on the Straight Dope Message Board in a factual thread (the qualifier I made above, which you ignored so you could pretend like you had a point) - nothing to see here. Hey, and dowsing, that works for me too, in my own, personal, individual circumstances. :rolleyes:
Everyone cares about and posts about stuff that is of zero consequence to them. I haven’t seen you jumping on them. :dubious:
Deliberately using inflammatory words (“in a lather”) which are not representative of the discussion at hand is poor form on your part.
See, you’re just trying to find a reason to fight. If you honestly care about making a point and being understood, cut this unrepresentative shit out. Otherwise, just carry on like you are and I’ll stop reading your posts from now on.
Given that fifty percent of the threads you’ve started were ATMB threads bitching about other threads, aren’t you about overdue to start one there bitching about this thread?
OK.
"Yeah, yeah, definitely.
We definitely don’t want people to start thinking of themselves as hot, let alone “fucking hot.” God alone only knows what kind of dire consequences might ensue."
Are you usually a moron, or are you having a tough week?
I’m going to take a shot of tequila every time someone says ‘First Law’ in this thread. Una, get me drunk!
You understand me just fine.
Sorry for hurting your feelings, but I calls how I sees 'em.
Is that an actual statistic or or one you made up? Because if it’s the former, it’s pretty pathetic to search for someone’s posts, review them for content and then report statistics about them.
It is only a bit less pathetic for someone to make up a number to make a non point.
0/10 Cumpuppy.
I’ll take my tequila with a side of lard, please.
Off topic, but does anyone remember Arthur C. Clarke’s Three Laws of Robotics? (It’s funny how laws come in threes.) The First Law, as I remember, stated “No robot may harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to come to harm”. The second and third were in similar veins. It’s interesting how from those three laws - I mean, the First Law was explicitly coined to rule out stories like the one about Frankenstein’s monster or the golem of Hebrew legend attacking it’s creator; a robot had no choice about obeying the First Law and the First Law meant it could not harm its creator - Clarke managed to spin so many interesting stories.
Not all of them were about the First Law by any means. In at least one case, a robot became conflicted between Second and Third Law, although the resolution to that one entailed somehow dissuading another robot from obeying First Law because the malfunctioning robot had to be induced to obey First Law as for plot reasons it wasn’t obeying the Second Law. But certainly there was a story or two where the idea was that a robot trod as close to breaking the First Law as it could rationalize. Still, more of them featured robots heroically keeping the First Law regardless of personal consequence.
Bishop, the android in Aliens, gets as far as starting to recite a form of the First Law to assert his moral superiority over Ash, but that’s more a shout-out than anything else. Asimov robots cannot be constructed at all without having the First Law - and the other two - built in. It’s unclear why, but it’s established beyond argument that this is indeed so.
/hijack
Don’t give me a hard time for commenting on exactly what you posted the first time.
Well, I was going to do a tequila with training wheels. Instead of salt, we use sugar, and instead of lemons we use cupcakes.
I notice that Malacandra just said it again.
You need to work bacon in there somehow.
Maybe we can just make very very rummy rum cake. Or tiramisu with extra booze and a chaser?
Or make those really yummy umbrella drinks with ice cream? I know one that is Bailey’s, Bananas and Ice Cream (you might get fat before you get drunk…oh, wait).
These both sound rather appealing. Can we work bacon in the mix somehow? Afterall, an endrunkening is no good without bacon.
Edit: Ha! tacojerko beat me to it!
Rim the shot glass in bacon bits!
HAAAA! You dead wrong for that, Dangerosa. First Law!
ETA: sorry for the double post. Ya’ll are cracking me up.
You know, if you drink ice water, your body needs to warm it up and you expend calories. So ice water has a negative caloric effect. I’m sure that ice cream drinks work the same way…
Have you seen the McNuggutini?
That was Asimov, you fat fuck. (Now we’re back on topic!)