Overheard at Work

[I'm a red panda]

In Michigan, at least on campus in Ann Arbor, the homeless are more than willing to dig through garbages to find cans. They would break into fraternities to try to collect their cans early Saturday and Sunday morning.

The streets of Iowa City are always covered in cans on game day, because people throw them on the ground for the homeless.

But overall, I think A LOT more cans go into the trash than the homeless are able to grab.  Our homeless population really doesn't extend into the suburbs well.

[seanc0x0]

1. Did you lose all your teeth drinking 4 - 8L of soda a day?

2. For every tooth you lost, did you gain 20 pounds?

That's an absolutely incredibly insane daily consumption. I thought people who drank like two cans a day were pushing it.

Lost no teeth (just had my first filling at 37), and I was very young and active back then. I did lose about 15 lbs when I switched to diet cola, so it did have an effect. I kept on with diet for another 10 years at similar levels.

I can hardly believe I did that, for so many reasons. Nowadays I just have fizzy drinks when I'm out and about or enjoying a rum and coke or two.

Literally how do you fit that much cola inside you? If I drank 4l of cola (let alone 8!) I would have no room left for food! Which I guess would be good seeing as how I'd have reached my RDA of calories already...

Easy. Start drinking in the morning, keep drinking all day into late night. Pee a lot. Really don't recommend it though. :)

[GuitarStv]

Me neither. = (

But, I was 16 at the time. And only drank 1, max 2, cans a day. I hate it when advice for losing weight starts with "stop drinking soda." I don't drink it. What else ya got?

Weight loss advice starts with soda because it is the low hanging fruit.

It's not just soda. Stop getting calories from any drinks - that will help with weight loss. That means no juice with sugar in it. No sports drinks. No energy drinks (which, just no anyways). No milk/sugar in coffee/tea. Yes, that leaves water. Drink tons of that.

Of course, eating well (lots of fruits/veggies, nothing in a box or a can or a drive-thru) and exercising is needed as well.

Which is why weight loss is near impossible when you basically only drink water and haven't gone through a drive through in a decade.

Someone should have told me to be extremely unhealthy in my 20s; that way when my metabolism bottomed out I could just drop all the bad habits.

Also, I should have had cable, smoked, and gone to Starbucks daily. Because I could have saved so much money by quitting those things.

Your metabolism is a function of your caloric needs.  Basically the amount you burn depends on the amount of physical exertion that you do added to the resting caloric consumption needed to maintain/rebuild your muscles.  If your metabolism 'bottomed out' that means that you weren't burning many calories.

If you're unwilling to become very active, then it will be very tough to lose weight without drastically altering your eating habits.

[I'm a red panda]

Your metabolism is a function of your caloric needs.  Basically the amount you burn depends on the amount of physical exertion that you do added to the resting caloric consumption needed to maintain/rebuild your muscles.  If your metabolism 'bottomed out' that means that you weren't burning many calories.

If you're unwilling to become very active, then it will be very tough to lose weight without drastically altering your eating habits.

These things change as you age.  Without changing my diet or exercise at all it became more difficult to maintain weight in my mid-30s than it was in my mid-20s.

Unfortunately, since I already had a healthy diet and was active, the only way to do something was to become extremely active; something my body actually couldn't support due to various injuries through life.  Meaning I gained weight.

The most reliable weight loss I've found so far is my pregnancy (down 20 pounds in 17 weeks). I suspect that won't be sustainable.

[mm1970]

Your metabolism is a function of your caloric needs.  Basically the amount you burn depends on the amount of physical exertion that you do added to the resting caloric consumption needed to maintain/rebuild your muscles.  If your metabolism 'bottomed out' that means that you weren't burning many calories.

If you're unwilling to become very active, then it will be very tough to lose weight without drastically altering your eating habits.

These things change as you age.  Without changing my diet or exercise at all it became more difficult to maintain weight in my mid-30s than it was in my mid-20s.

Unfortunately, since I already had a healthy diet and was active, the only way to do something was to become extremely active; something my body actually couldn't support due to various injuries through life.  Meaning I gained weight.

The most reliable weight loss I've found so far is my pregnancy (down 20 pounds in 17 weeks). I suspect that won't be sustainable.

Yes, I have found that the people *most* likely to espouse this metabolism and calories in/ calories out have never been a female in their 30's or 40's or 50's.

The effects of hormones and insulin cannot be discounted.  But unless you have experienced it, you won't understand it.  (Especially the effects of stress.)  And don't get me even started on menopause, which I haven't quite hit yet.  No changes in lifestyle, BOOM 10 to 15 pounds.  Hello hormones!  I've also read some interesting books that discuss the difference between being "formerly overweight" and "never overweight" and how your body processes food differently.  (For one thing, you have more fat cells.  But also, you've permanently damaged your body.  For this reason, many people who have been overweight cannot eat as many carbohydrates as people who were never overweight.  But I digress.)

And the honest truth about time and exercise are often ignored.

I have a friend in her 70's who exercises 2 hours a day and eats 1200-1300 calories a day.  She gained about 15 pounds after 70 that she could not take off.  Her doctor says "you are 70!"  (This is a woman who gained 10 lbs during her one pregnancy and had an 8.5 pound baby.  Always trim and fit, but had to give up tap dancing and tennis in her 60's due to injury.)

She has taken off 7 pounds by adding a "high intensity" 45 minute aerobic interval workout 3x a week, on top of her 2 hours a day.  She said "I've pretty much accepted that I will have to do this forever to keep the weight off".

Imagine, 2 hours a day PLUS 3x of 45 minutes of interval workout.  Don't know about you, but *I* don't have that much time.
My old boss is 58 and was a distance runner and cyclist.  With injury and major illness, he cannot run because he cannot feel his feet anymore.  So he has gained some weight (well, the not running and the medication).  He still bikes 100 miles at a time, but his body is used to that.

(On the flip side, a different old boss, same age, is 6' tall and 138 pounds and cannot gain weight.  He's also a cyclist.  On a bad note, his bones easily break.)

I found that I was able to maintain a decent weight in my late 30's when I was running, but then I got injured.  First the hip, then the ankle, then the knee.  I cannot run distance anymore.  In fact, I can't run at all.  Well, what's wrong with that really?  Lots.  For one thing, I was running 6 miles in an hour, but can only walk 3 miles in an hour.  That burns approximately half the calories.  I don't exactly have 2 hours a day to work out.  I do have time to do some - walking, swimming, weight training, yoga.  But there simply aren't enough hours in the day to increase my workout time.

My caloric intake is around 1200 to 1400 calories a day.  It's very hard to get the kind of nutrients your body needs on less than that.  In fact, 1200 calories is the *minimum* recommended.

The "it's just math" people tend to be overwhelmingly male and young, in my experience.  And are the folks who can drop 10 pounds by going on the "six pack diet"  (you know, cutting back from a six pack a day to one beer).

[mtn]

The "it's just math" people tend to be overwhelmingly male and young, in my experience. 

I am young and male, and a math major. In a month I will be married to a dietitian. My mom is a nurse, I have a lot of uncles who are doctors and the like, some physical trainers and some more dietitians in the family.

It is still just math, even as you age. The difference is that as you get older you need less calories. It is the reason that old people have soup and that is all they need. Yes, there are hormones that play into it, but it really is still just math--you just have to change the equation as you age. The hard part is finding the right equation.

[mm1970]

The "it's just math" people tend to be overwhelmingly male and young, in my experience. 

I am young and male, and a math major. In a month I will be married to a dietitian. My mom is a nurse, I have a lot of uncles who are doctors and the like, some physical trainers and some more dietitians in the family.

It is still just math, even as you age. The difference is that as you get older you need less calories. It is the reason that old people have soup and that is all they need. Yes, there are hormones that play into it, but it really is still just math--you just have to change the equation as you age. The hard part is finding the right equation.

It's not exactly math though:
Why do certain medications cause weight gain, with no changes?
Why do certain foods cause weight gain/ loss, with the same calories?  (think insulin)
Why do hormones change weight gain/ loss?
Why does stress change weight gain/ loss?
Did you know that 3500 calories is not a pound?  As in, if you eat 3500 calories too much, you won't gain a pound, and if you cut 3500 calories,  you won't lose a pound.  The body is amazingly capable of maintaining a "set point" in both directions. 

It's not calories in vs. calories out for many people.
It's just not.

That doesn't mean you don't eat a healthy diet and get exercise, because both are awesome for you!!

It does mean that if you do both, and you are fit and healthy, who the fuck cares if you are 130 pounds or 150 pounds, or have a BMI of 24 or 26.

It also means: be kind, always.  That 50 year old woman on the beach in her bikini with the spare tire - you don't know the path she walked to get there.
That 30 year old man who is 50 pounds overweight - you don't know that he just lost 70 pounds.

Don't be an armchair quarterback!!

[I'm a red panda]

The "it's just math" people tend to be overwhelmingly male and young, in my experience. 

I am young and male, and a math major. In a month I will be married to a dietitian. My mom is a nurse, I have a lot of uncles who are doctors and the like, some physical trainers and some more dietitians in the family.

It is still just math, even as you age. The difference is that as you get older you need less calories. It is the reason that old people have soup and that is all they need. Yes, there are hormones that play into it, but it really is still just math--you just have to change the equation as you age. The hard part is finding the right equation.

I'd love to hear what this magical soup is that also meets all the required nutritional needs. Organ health, brain health, bone health, energy, attention. I'd like to make sure my hair is not falling out, my teeth/gums aren't rotting, I'm not anemic, etc.

Yeah, I could cut calories to lose weight; but the level I'd need to cut to I'd sacrifice a lot of nutritional needs.
From what I can tell, the "old people" who eat just soup generally have lost function in other areas due to failing nutrition.

[vivophoenix]

The "it's just math" people tend to be overwhelmingly male and young, in my experience. 

I am young and male, and a math major. In a month I will be married to a dietitian. My mom is a nurse, I have a lot of uncles who are doctors and the like, some physical trainers and some more dietitians in the family.

It is still just math, even as you age. The difference is that as you get older you need less calories. It is the reason that old people have soup and that is all they need. Yes, there are hormones that play into it, but it really is still just math--you just have to change the equation as you age. The hard part is finding the right equation.

I'd love to hear what this magical soup is that also meets all the required nutritional needs. Organ health, brain health, bone health, energy, attention. I'd like to make sure my hair is not falling out, my teeth/gums aren't rotting, I'm not anemic, etc.

Yeah, I could cut calories to lose weight; but the level I'd need to cut to I'd sacrifice a lot of nutritional needs.
From what I can tell, the "old people" who eat just soup generally have lost function in other areas due to failing nutrition.

bone broth?

[GuitarStv]

Why do certain medications cause weight gain, with no changes?

I was referring to bad weight (body fat), as most people would be happy to have 10 lbs more muscle (your body looks better).

Medications can stimulate muscle growth, which can increase your weight without increasing body fat . . . with the side effect of requiring more calories for resting maintenance.  Water retention is another common way to gain weight without actually getting fatter.

Why do certain foods cause weight gain/ loss, with the same calories?  (think insulin)

What foods cause greater fat gain for the same calories?  This magical food can cure world hunger, it's the perpetual motion machine of foods.

Why do hormones change weight gain/ loss?

Some hormones promote muscle growth.  Higher percentage muscle mass on your body means that you need to eat more food to maintain weight.  Some hormones promote water retention.  Again, more weight (not necessarily bad weight - fat).

Some hormones trigger appetite changes which make you feel more hungry, so you eat more and are more likely to gain more fat.

Why does stress change weight gain/ loss?

Typically stress comes along with appetite changes.  When you eat more or less you gain or lose weight.

Did you know that 3500 calories is not a pound?  As in, if you eat 3500 calories too much, you won't gain a pound, and if you cut 3500 calories,  you won't lose a pound.  The body is amazingly capable of maintaining a "set point" in both directions.

If the body is so amazing at maintaining a set point in either direction, how does anyone's body weight ever change?

I can tell you for sure that this concept is bullshit.  I used to regularly cut weight to get in a lower weight bracket for boxing tournaments.  My regular body weight at the time was about 180, and I used to cut down to around 170 lbs . . . it would take about a month of an altered diet, and gave me a reach advantage over most people in my bracket.

At one point I tried gaining weight for a wrestling tournament.  Several months of weight lifting and a lot of healthy foods, and I added about 20 lbs of muscle over six months.

It's not calories in vs. calories out for many people.
It's just not.

?

That doesn't mean you don't eat a healthy diet and get exercise, because both are awesome for you!!

Agreed.

It does mean that if you do both, and you are fit and healthy, who the fuck cares if you are 130 pounds or 150 pounds, or have a BMI of 24 or 26.

It also means: be kind, always.  That 50 year old woman on the beach in her bikini with the spare tire - you don't know the path she walked to get there.
That 30 year old man who is 50 pounds overweight - you don't know that he just lost 70 pounds.

Don't be an armchair quarterback!!

First of all, BMI is bullshit.  It doesn't take into account your muscle mass which makes it a stupid metric to pay attention to:


I don't judge people based on how they look.  I grew up as a grossly obese little boy.  I liked video games and reading in my room.  My weight in grade four was the same as my weight when I was thirty . . . but I was a foot and a half shorter then.  If I'd listened to the people pretending that the food you eat and the exercise you get don't directly control your body weight, I'd still be fat.

[Rollin]

I just spoke to the attorney recruiter - she was lamenting about her Treasure Island beach house got flooded in the recent rains. Her permanent residence is in Dunedin, the same county and a 30 minutes drive north -.-

I attached a map for further face palming.

Wait until the tropical storms and hurricanes come knockin' if she's having problems with recent rains.

But I get your point in that the two are so close to each other.  Heck, it's a lot cheaper to drive from Dunedin and hang out at the beach now and then - even if you had to pay for parking (which you don't in most places in TI).

[I'm a red panda]

First of all, BMI is bullshit.  It doesn't take into account your muscle mass which makes it a stupid metric to pay attention to:

Most people don't have the muscle mass issue.

At least not the majority of people who play the "BMI isn't accurate" game.  (Yes, I do know a few people who have almost no fat on their body who are "obese"- but most people who are obese, well, they are obese.)

[mm1970]

First of all, BMI is bullshit.  It doesn't take into account your muscle mass which makes it a stupid metric to pay attention to:

Most people don't have the muscle mass issue.

At least not the majority of people who play the "BMI isn't accurate" game.  (Yes, I do know a few people who have almost no fat on their body who are "obese"- but most people who are obese, well, they are obese.)

I have quite a bit of muscle, to be honest.  Always have.  I'm probably still a little overweight though.  Although as I was getting dressed this weekend, I thought to myself "you should just buy a bikini, you look fine!"  So there is that.

More than muscle is also just build.  I've got wide hips.  They got wider after the first baby.  And even wider after the second.  But the surprising thing?  My ribcage and shoulders got broader after the second baby too.  Not sure if it's age (I have other women friends who have experienced the same thing in their 40's and 50's), the pregnancy, or the swimming (since I can't run anymore, I swim).  But sometime last year I got back into my pre-2nd-baby jeans, but the shirts are still WAY too small on the shoulders.  Don't think they'll ever fit.

[Pooperman]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

[mm1970]

If the body is so amazing at maintaining a set point in either direction, how does anyone's body weight ever change?

I can tell you for sure that this concept is bullshit.  I used to regularly cut weight to get in a lower weight bracket for boxing tournaments.  My regular body weight at the time was about 180, and I used to cut down to around 170 lbs . . . it would take about a month of an altered diet, and gave me a reach advantage over most people in my bracket.

At one point I tried gaining weight for a wrestling tournament.  Several months of weight lifting and a lot of healthy foods, and I added about 20 lbs of muscle over six months.

It requires more work (back to "3500 calories is not a pound").

It's not that you cannot gain/ lose.

It's just that it's more work.

At a setpoint, if you eat 100 cal extra a day, that's rounding error, you aren't going to gain 10 pounds in a year.

If you gain 10 pounds in a year (or whatever time), it takes a LOT more than 3500 extra calories.

The reverse is also true.

If you want to lose 10 pounds, you cannot simply cut a total of 3500 calories from your normal eating, and keep the same exercise routine.  You won't lose 10 pounds.  Heck, if you even recalculate your caloric needs as you decrease weight, you still won't lose 10 pounds.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/01/how-many-extra-calories-cause-weight-gain/

Also, just because something worked for you does not make it bullshit.  Applying something that you did to someone else, or declaring it universally true?  That's bullshit.


Stress and hormones - ABSENT OF ANY CHANGE IN EATING HABITS - cause weight gain.  Yes, stress can cause you to eat more.  But for me, stress and lack of sleep, during a time where my food intake is unchanged, (because I plan it out a day or two ahead of time and write it down every day) will cause weight gain.  Or lack of weight loss, depending on the mode that I'm in.

[vivophoenix]

If the body is so amazing at maintaining a set point in either direction, how does anyone's body weight ever change?

I can tell you for sure that this concept is bullshit.  I used to regularly cut weight to get in a lower weight bracket for boxing tournaments.  My regular body weight at the time was about 180, and I used to cut down to around 170 lbs . . . it would take about a month of an altered diet, and gave me a reach advantage over most people in my bracket.

At one point I tried gaining weight for a wrestling tournament.  Several months of weight lifting and a lot of healthy foods, and I added about 20 lbs of muscle over six months.

It requires more work (back to "3500 calories is not a pound").

It's not that you cannot gain/ lose.

It's just that it's more work.

At a setpoint, if you eat 100 cal extra a day, that's rounding error, you aren't going to gain 10 pounds in a year.

If you gain 10 pounds in a year (or whatever time), it takes a LOT more than 3500 extra calories.

The reverse is also true.

If you want to lose 10 pounds, you cannot simply cut a total of 3500 calories from your normal eating, and keep the same exercise routine.  You won't lose 10 pounds.  Heck, if you even recalculate your caloric needs as you decrease weight, you still won't lose 10 pounds.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/01/how-many-extra-calories-cause-weight-gain/

Also, just because something worked for you does not make it bullshit.  Applying something that you did to someone else, or declaring it universally true?  That's bullshit.


Stress and hormones - ABSENT OF ANY CHANGE IN EATING HABITS - cause weight gain.  Yes, stress can cause you to eat more.  But for me, stress and lack of sleep, during a time where my food intake is unchanged, (because I plan it out a day or two ahead of time and write it down every day) will cause weight gain.  Or lack of weight loss, depending on the mode that I'm in.

i am not an expert, but if you are eating exactly the same, and stress and hormones alone, cause you to gain weight, there is a lot more at work. stress will only do so much. i would be more concerned about a metabolism issue.

people may hate to hear it, and be sensitive, but calories in vs calories out is pretty much it. your body cant invent fat or muscle or water out of thin air. its a balance equation. certain hormones may make you store fat a little bit more, but not enough to actively gain weight from no where.

yes as you get smaller it gets more difficult to lose weight, cause you arent carrying all that weight around anymore. that makes sense. but doing everything the same and then getting stressed isnt going to pack on weight.

when stressed do you move around less? sleep more? sleep less? drink more liquids? exercise in a different manner?

[NoraLenderbee]

mm1970, I suggest that it isn't worth while continuing this argument. Those of us who have experienced it know what you're talking about. There is no changing the minds of the others. Just let their comments roll off your back.

[gimp]

Oh lel, defensiveness over eating too much, again, while making fun of people for spending too much. Will we see another page of it fifty posts from now?

[Silverado]

mm1970, I suggest that it isn't worth while continuing this argument. Those of us who have experienced it know what you're talking about. There is no changing the minds of the others. Just let their comments roll off your back.

I see the problem as a fundemental lack of simple math understanding.

In - Out = Change

What a couple posters keep missing is that both terms on the left can change, which obviously impact the right. Gtrsteve tried to explain, but follow on quoters clearly missed it.

In is easy, it's what goes past your lips. The out is much more complex, and depends on activity, stress, hormones, meds, etc.

But in the end, the math holds.

[kpd905]

My bucket list for retirement includes spending a few months at each of a number of lower-paid jobs (fast food, custodial, construction, etc), just for the experience.

You lost me at fast food.  The other two might be tolerable for a short period.

[I'm a red panda]

Gtrsteve tried to explain, but follow on quoters clearly missed it.

I didn't miss it. I'm waiting to hear how you balance all the other nutritional needs while getting 800 or fewer calories a day.

Calories are not the only thing the body needs to run.

Yeah, In - Out will cause weight loss, but there are going to be other problems developing.

My complaint was that it isn't always as easy as "don't drink soda, stop going to fast food" when the equation changes. If you had good habits in your 20s, you are screwed later on, because there is nothing to cut.

[MgoSam]

My bucket list for retirement includes spending a few months at each of a number of lower-paid jobs (fast food, custodial, construction, etc), just for the experience.

You lost me at fast food.  The other two might be tolerable for a short period.

I've had good memories working at Burger King, but of course I was a kid at the time. That said, I imagine it would be interesting as an adult to work in fast food.

[Seppia]

Gtrsteve tried to explain, but follow on quoters clearly missed it.

I didn't miss it. I'm waiting to hear how you balance all the other nutritional needs while getting 800 or fewer calories a day.

Calories are not the only thing the body needs to run.

Yeah, In - Out will cause weight loss, but there are going to be other problems developing.

I am not a doctor but my dad is. If I recall correctly he told me the average adult needs 1200-1500 calories per day to survive lying in a bed.
800 calories to create a gap seems low honestly.

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Sorry to be pedantic but citibike is actually $150 per year in NYC.

[Sloeginfizz]

Everything in New York is more expensive I guess. Divvy, the same thing basically, here in Chicago, is $75 a year. I consider it a bargain. Bike is my fastest commute to work, but I don't want to leave my good bike locked up on city streets all day. Even if they can't steal it, jerks bust parts off just for funsies sometimes. I could get a beater bike that I could leave out on the streets I suppose, but even that I wouldn't want to leave outside 24/7. But my building charges a $60 bike storage fee yearly, so it would only save me $15 a year over divvy. The other nice thing about divvy is I can just grab one and go. No looking for my lock. No trying to remember if the batteries in my lights are charged. I take divvy to work most mornings, walk home most evenings.

[Taran Wanderer]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

[LennStar]

mm1970, I suggest that it isn't worth while continuing this argument. Those of us who have experienced it know what you're talking about. There is no changing the minds of the others. Just let their comments roll off your back.

The old experience against math argument. Its the same with religion. Nobody can proof the existance of any God, but a lot of people still believe. Because they feel better believing it.
That isnt a problem. The problem starts when the believers go round saying someone else has to believe because "experience!"

[CmFtns]

I see my story about soda started a multi-page argument about weight gain/loss so let's get off that non-comedic topic and move on to more stories. That's what this thread is about anyway right?

Anyway my coworkers and I are all software engineers... make good money... so we're all talking and one CW is complaining about how his insurance is going to drop him if he starts driving for uber... Now i'm confused because usually people at my work are at least fairly responsible or at least make enough money to not be drowning in our low COL area. So i'm wondering why would someone with his skillset want to drive for uber. Apparently they literally need the extra paycheck and cant live without it.

So I said: "My solution is to not spend so much money"
He said: "HAHA... Well tell my wife that..."

I was thinking: "YEA... TELL YOUR WIFE THAT!"

[antarestar]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

NYC block is 1/10 of a mile. They are ubering 1/2 a mile each time.

[Pooperman]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

NYC block is 1/10 of a mile. They are ubering 1/2 a mile each time.

And that is pathetic. I walk from WTC to basically the ferry every day. That's about a mile each way (since I have to walk back after work).

[druth]

mm1970, I suggest that it isn't worth while continuing this argument. Those of us who have experienced it know what you're talking about. There is no changing the minds of the others. Just let their comments roll off your back.

Agreed, I have strong opinions on this whole discussion but I accept that this is totally not the place to do it.  Can't we go back to making fun of our coworkers?

[Lizzy B.]

Phew, finally made other to the end (again).  Although since I skipped/skimmed the gun and weight loss discussions, perhaps I only get partial credit.

This isn't too bad compared with many other stories in here, but yesterday while discussing the recent market turmoil a co-worker told me that he doesn't invest because "to get good returns you need to pay for information."  Apparently we're all screwed if we don't get insider tips. Oh dear. I hope this philosophy doesn't keep him from having a 401k since our employer contributes a fixed %age (not a match).

[GuitarStv]

Gtrsteve tried to explain, but follow on quoters clearly missed it.

I didn't miss it. I'm waiting to hear how you balance all the other nutritional needs while getting 800 or fewer calories a day.

Calories are not the only thing the body needs to run.

Yeah, In - Out will cause weight loss, but there are going to be other problems developing.

How do you balance nutritional needs while living on 800 calories a day?  That's easy!  It's easy because living on 800 calories a day is absurdly low.  Fix your initial plan.

If you're a completely sedentary male between 31-50 years old, you need about 2200 calories a day.  1800 calories if you're a completely sedentary woman 31-50 years old.  (http://www.webmd.com/diet/estimated-calorie-requirement)

- Rather than crash dieting and trying to cut more than 60% of your daily recommended calories out . . . be sensible and make small changes over a longer period of time.  Rather than cut 1200 calories a day, cut 200.  It might take longer to lose weight, but you won't be putting yourself at risk.
- Alternatively, stop being sedentary.  Being active can substantially increase the number of calories (by more than 30%) needed to maintain your weight.  No need to diet at all.

or

Do both.  Cut say, 200 calories out of your daily intake while getting some exercise.  Over a period of a year, you'll lose a ton of weight without having issues getting enough nutrients and you'll stop being sedentary which tends to have a myriad of beneficial effects.  These beneficial patterns you follow will become ingrained as good habits and will pay off a lifetime of dividends.

Woah, three simple and sensible options that have worked for millions of people!

Alternatively, complain about how your hormones are keeping you weak, fat, and sedentary . . . how you eat a perfect diet and exercise, physics is wrong, and your body can create fat out of nothing.  I don't care what you do personally.  It's only when you try to mislead others with that mindset that I'll object.

[I'm a red panda]

You're making a lot of assumptions.
1) I am not sedentary, except when required by a doctor. (Like right now, because I am dropping weight like crazy due to the lovely little parasite in my uterus.)
2) Those calorie counts are absurdly high for someone my height/weight.  Not everyone is a median height.
3) I've never crash dieted. I actually worked with a nutritionalist at the hospital last year, and with an hour of high intensity daily exercise (1 rest day) was on a 1,100 calorie diet. I lost about a pound every 3 weeks on that one; but sadly it wasn't sustainable because the exercise routine sent me back to PT. Without the exercise the hospital recommended 800 calories and weekly monitoring visits. I wasn't willing to do that- I am not obese, I don't need to lose the weight that badly. If I ate 1800 calories, with exercise, I'd be a balloon. But I really appreciate the medical advice, despite you having never seen me.  I am sure you know better than the professionals who have treated me.

Alternatively, complain about how your hormones are keeping you weak, fat, and sedentary . . . how you eat a perfect diet and exercise, physics is wrong, and your body can create fat out of nothing.  I don't care what you do personally.  It's only when you try to mislead others with that mindset that I'll object.

I did not say a single one of these things.  I merely said, that if you eat well and exercise regularly in your 20s you are screwed later in life. Because as the equation goes, you have to have less in or more out.  When you were already at a healthy low in and a high out when you are young, adjusting that when you get older is not as simple as stopping with the soda and beer. Because there WAS no soda and beer. You can't just drop bad habits if you didn't have them. And only rarely does your body allow you to exercise MORE as you age.  If you could go and unbreak my neck and remove the spinal cord damage, that would be fabulous. Because it would open up a lot more activity streams that I am no longer able to participate in.  I'd also appreciate if you untore the labrum in my hip, and undid all the tendonitis. Those limit quite a few things as well.

4) This has nothing to do with work.

[HairyUpperLip]

You guys are killing the thread. No foam jokes. This is just getting silly.

[Pooperman]

This thread has threadabetes. This can only be cured with some insolent comments about our coworkers!

[lifeinhd]

I didn't lose an ounce when I stopped drinking soda. 

Grr.

Neither did I, but then again I never had much to lose.

[ducky19]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

[mm1970]

You're making a lot of assumptions.
1) I am not sedentary, except when required by a doctor. (Like right now, because I am dropping weight like crazy due to the lovely little parasite in my uterus.)
2) Those calorie counts are absurdly high for someone my height/weight.  Not everyone is a median height.
3) I've never crash dieted. I actually worked with a nutritionalist at the hospital last year, and with an hour of high intensity daily exercise (1 rest day) was on a 1,100 calorie diet. I lost about a pound every 3 weeks on that one; but sadly it wasn't sustainable because the exercise routine sent me back to PT. Without the exercise the hospital recommended 800 calories and weekly monitoring visits. I wasn't willing to do that- I am not obese, I don't need to lose the weight that badly. If I ate 1800 calories, with exercise, I'd be a balloon. But I really appreciate the medical advice, despite you having never seen me.  I am sure you know better than the professionals who have treated me.

Alternatively, complain about how your hormones are keeping you weak, fat, and sedentary . . . how you eat a perfect diet and exercise, physics is wrong, and your body can create fat out of nothing.  I don't care what you do personally.  It's only when you try to mislead others with that mindset that I'll object.

I did not say a single one of these things.  I merely said, that if you eat well and exercise regularly in your 20s you are screwed later in life. Because as the equation goes, you have to have less in or more out.  When you were already at a healthy low in and a high out when you are young, adjusting that when you get older is not as simple as stopping with the soda and beer. Because there WAS no soda and beer. You can't just drop bad habits if you didn't have them. And only rarely does your body allow you to exercise MORE as you age.  If you could go and unbreak my neck and remove the spinal cord damage, that would be fabulous. Because it would open up a lot more activity streams that I am no longer able to participate in.  I'd also appreciate if you untore the labrum in my hip, and undid all the tendonitis. Those limit quite a few things as well.

4) This has nothing to do with work.

I agree, time to go back to making fun of our coworkers!

Seriously, I got nothing.  I work with engineers, most are pretty frugal.  We've had 3 layoffs in 2 years, there aren't many people left.  No raises in 4 years.  Nobody is spending diddly.

Except my officemate who got married and took 2 weeks to go to SE Asia.  That was expensive.  But you only get married once!  (ha)

[I'm a red panda]

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

I could save them another $1,000 a year in the first year (and then $1,200 a year after that.)

Buy a $200 bike.

[Pooperman]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

$1300 from Uber + $1200 form the CitiBike = $2500. They're spending $2500 a year not to walk half a mile. That's pathetic considering I walk about 3 miles a day to and from work. Even a mile only takes like 20 minutes to walk casually, and that's not bad at all!

[MgoSam]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

$1300 from Uber + $1200 form the CitiBike = $2500. They're spending $2500 a year not to walk half a mile. That's pathetic considering I walk about 3 miles a day to and from work. Even a mile only takes like 20 minutes to walk casually, and that's not bad at all!

I can understand during winter, but half a mile might do them some good. If they were to do it say once a week, instead of every day, they might find that they actually enjoy the fresh air. Driving won't save them all that much time, as half a mile takes about 10 minutes, driving without traffic might save off a few minutes...but then there's waiting for Uber to come, and stop lights, and traffic, and the like and you might end up taking the exact amount of time.

[HairyUpperLip]

I can understand during winter, but half a mile might do them some good.

You can understand that living in Minnesota? When I worked in Iowa I walked about 0.6 miles to and from work. I did it in even in the dead of winter - I just did silly stuff like dressing appropriately.

[I'm a red panda]

I can understand during winter, but half a mile might do them some good.

You can understand that living in Minnesota? When I worked in Iowa I walked about 0.6 miles to and from work. I did it in even in the dead of winter - I just did silly stuff like dressing appropriately.

My parking lot is a mile from my building, I get to walk that twice a day.  It has to be below -35 windchill before I make my husband drive me to the office door.  And yeah, I wear ski pants over my office clothing, and keep shoes at work because I wear snow boots.

It seems like the time it takes to wait for the Uber car to pick you up, you'd be done walking. I don't think NYC gets THAT cold for that many days. The biggest problem is that it will be slushy. The Manolo's aren't going to like that.

[Pooperman]

I can understand during winter, but half a mile might do them some good.

You can understand that living in Minnesota? When I worked in Iowa I walked about 0.6 miles to and from work. I did it in even in the dead of winter - I just did silly stuff like dressing appropriately.

My parking lot is a mile from my building, I get to walk that twice a day.  It has to be below -35 windchill before I make my husband drive me to the office door.  And yeah, I wear ski pants over my office clothing, and keep shoes at work because I wear snow boots.

It seems like the time it takes to wait for the Uber car to pick you up, you'd be done walking. I don't think NYC gets THAT cold for that many days. The biggest problem is that it will be slushy. The Manolo's aren't going to like that.

NYC hasn't been that cold since the last ice age :/.

[zephyr911]

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still wasting $2500/year.

Fixed that.
If I ever get so f'ing lazy and self-absorbed that I feel I'm entitled to forgo $36K (investments+gains) over a decade instead of walking my happy ass five blocks, I hope someone shoots me in the head.

[MgoSam]

I can understand during winter, but half a mile might do them some good.

You can understand that living in Minnesota? When I worked in Iowa I walked about 0.6 miles to and from work. I did it in even in the dead of winter - I just did silly stuff like dressing appropriately.

I walk way more than a mile in the dead of winter (fresh air is fresh air), but for someone that doesn't do any walking...starting now in summer might be an easier way. By winter, they may think, 'man, this is so much easier than wasting my money, I'm going to continue walking.'

[Jouer]

Not walking 5 blocks in NYC, regardless of weather is ridiculous.

My friend visited NYC with her sister who insisted on getting cabs everywhere. Couldn't walk more than a couple blocks and no way she'd use the subway (like it was 1980 NYC or something). It drove my friend nuts! She's the type to run 15km in central park.

[Bumbling Bee]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

$1300 from Uber + $1200 form the CitiBike = $2500. They're spending $2500 a year not to walk half a mile. That's pathetic considering I walk about 3 miles a day to and from work. Even a mile only takes like 20 minutes to walk casually, and that's not bad at all!

Isn't a Citibike membership $150/year? I'm pretty sure there's only a surcharge if a ride is longer than 45 minutes, which should more than cover 5 blocks. Even long blocks. Even if you are as clumsy ("Oh, there's a method of stopping a bike that does not involve wiping out? Tell me more!") as I am.

[I'm a red panda]

$150 a year sounds a lot more reasonable.

Now- I've seen the Citibike stands in New York, but are they really so often that you wouldn't have to walk a block to pick up the bike, and a block to drop it off; in which case you've walked almost half of the distance the bike has to cover anyway!

[bb11]

Just heard this gem: coworker and wife are lazy. They don't want to walk like 5 blocks a couple times a week to some destination in NYC. What do they do? They take Uber of course! According to him, they take about 6 x 2 rides a week, each costing about $8, so like $100/wk ($5,200/yr). To save, his wife is now going to get a membership to CitiBike ($100/month), which will cut their use down to 1-2 times a week ($25/wk), or a total of $2,500/yr ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO WALK 5 BLOCKS!

Long blocks or short blocks?  How lazy are they really?

$25 x 52 weeks is $1300, not $2500 - so even if the CitiBike membership was $100/mo, they are still saving $2700/year.

$1300 from Uber + $1200 form the CitiBike = $2500. They're spending $2500 a year not to walk half a mile. That's pathetic considering I walk about 3 miles a day to and from work. Even a mile only takes like 20 minutes to walk casually, and that's not bad at all!

Citibike is only $149 a year mate. Pretty good deal actually.