"Not so bad."
Soft bigotry, my friend.
You know, refactoring stuff is so satisfying. After reading this post I reflected that I couldn't easily generate a randomized list of ten songs, though I could generate a list of all songs with a particular string in the title by a particular artist (for example), and I could generate a random ten-item list of albums (eg). And, moreover, the album-searching script and the song-searching one contain a lot of duplicated code. But no more! The common stuff has been moved to another area with the specificities abstracted out, and each original script is now shorter, clearer, and more capable. Hooray!
I just assumed that this was the nerd thread.
I tried using a couple Macs at school because some fucking genius at the U. of U. thought to himself, "let's wire up the whole campus and the labs with the machine only 2 percent of the students own." Pain. In. The. Ass.
it cost me precisely half what a similarly spec'ed Macbook Pro would cost
I'm willing to bet this is not, in fact, true. A friend of mine does price comparisons every time Apple comes out with a major new hardware release, and he's consistently found that Macs aren't any more expensive than similarly-spec'ed PCs.
Me, I use a Windows box at home, because there's still enough stuff out there that's built for the 80% case, and that's still a PC. But the things I've heard about Vista have me seriously considering a Mac for my next machine... plus I'd get to use Quicksilver. Quicksilver's almost enough to get me to switch now; I haven't found anything like it for Windows.
I just reinstalled my XP. I had been having boot crashes due to an old mobo, maybe even 4 years old that didn't recognize a large hardrive and stupid Seagate install software...never mind.
But somehow Windows on multiple hard crashes corrupts the basic dll's, which should be read-only. loaded into RAM and indestructible, but no...
I use Macs all the time at work and a PC at home and definitely prefer OS X for some things -- and it definitely has the edge when it comes to teh shiny. If I had to choose just the one, I'd take a Mac.
The price differential for Macs isn't necessarily always that bad -- it tends to be worse at the bottom end than the top. My work box is a top end Quad CPU Mac which compares pretty well for price with an equivalent PC [i.e. something with quad Xeon CPUs or 2 dual-cores and gigabytes of RAM].
I'm willing to bet this is not, in fact, true.
My laptop has a Core Duo processor, 2GB RAM, an 80GB hard drive, wifi, bluetooth, and had the OS and MS Office pre-installed and cost me $1250. Unless Macbook Pros sell at a major discount, that's half of what one costs.
Oh yeah, and up until recently [not including huge, noisy servers] there wasn't an equivalent PC.
Oh, and 256MB video RAM and a SoundBlaster sound card.
What do you do, McG, that you need that kind of power?
Your post's titled 'The OS', yet your on about the hardware, referring to your current choice as Windows [hardware]. This distinction, apart from price, is now minimized and lopsided, as Macs run Windows, Linux, OS X and a bunch of other OSes. Windows hardware runs everything too, except OS X. So whether you want to get a Mac, seems to me, should be based on whether or not you value the possibility of running OS X, (and maybe the shinyness value, though pretty Windows machines are also available but usually somewhat similarly priced to Macs).
Every workday I use four operating systems, OS X, Sun's Solaris, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. In the course of my computing life I've used many more OSes. For me the OS matters a lot. So for me, the Mac's OS is easily worth the higher cost of its hardware. I think that perhaps the other Mac lovers are similarly happier not so much with their hardware, but rather, their Macs' OS.
But even if I think it's better than Windows, this is only a relative thing. Windows gets hate because of how much it sucks. Macs get love because some people think they suck a little less than Windows, and those people think this is great. We live in an age of low, very low, expectations because year after year we get shitty computers, apps, and OSes from everyone, including Apple. These things are still so fucking hard to use, mostly anyways.
You're all happy and shit that you computer doesn't crash and that it works with everything you've tried to hook it up with. Well I can say the same for my Mac, but this is just low expectations.
It wasn't always so. I remember my sad answer to a classmate in the 6th grade when I had wired up my first computer from a Radio Shack kit to add any binary value 0 to 100 to any other binary value 0 to 100 and had brought it to school as a science demo. "Can it shoot laser beams?" he asked. "No", I replied, "It can add up to 8, but you have to know binary numbers to make sense of the input and the output"
Frickin' laser beams, where's my frickin' laser beams. Is that too much to ask?
"Unless Macbook Pros sell at a major discount, that's half of what one costs."
Get a Macbook instead. Your Mac premium would be less than 50%, rather than 100%.
---
"it cost me precisely half what a similarly spec'ed Macbook Pro would cost."
I'm not a lover of luxury goods for the sake of loving luxury goods. My tap water is of good quality, so I don't buy bottled water. But I'm happy to pay a bit extra to buy Reggiano parm for my pasta because I value my taste buds.
And I'm more than happy to spend the 40% extra for a Mac because I spend a lot of time on my computer, and I value my time.
I remember when the fools at RISDE decided to teach video editing using Premiere for Windows instead of Premiere for Mac and nobody learned anything all semester because crash, crash, crash, crash, crash.
maybe even 4 years old that didn't recognize a large hardrive and stupid Seagate install software...
But somehow Windows on multiple hard crashes corrupts the basic dll's, which should be read-only. loaded into RAM and indestructible, but no...
Have you considered, friend Bob, that the stupid Seagate install software leaves behind a special boot driver (as in it installs before boot) that doesn't give a fig about read only, since it pwns the entire drive, and thus pwns the entire OS as well?
Never never never never never never never never use the stupid seagate install program (which is actually yet another rehash of OnTrack, I do believe). If the HD is too big, either use it at a smaller size (works sometimes) or take it as your cue to get a new MB, at the same time.
If OS X ran on PC hardware, such that you could use the stupid Seagate install hardware, it would have the same problem.
m, also, ditto everything Mr. B said
Ogged, Apple charges the sun and the moon for RAM -- if you buy from a third-party vendor and install it yourself, the cost differential general becomes a lot less. (Dell's ordering process is still much more customizable than Apple's, but I've found that generally the cost differential between a Latitude or ThinkPad and a comprable Mac is generally just a couple hundred dollars.)
7 - There's a program called Launchy I hear good things about, although I think it's more of a LaunchBar clone than a Quicksilver clone. Also, there's Enso Launcher, which I know nothing about other than the involvement of Jef Raskin's kid.
These aren't my areas of expertise, but this is the nerd thread, so...
I think one difference that needs to be factored into account here, besides the superficial stuff like "price" and "look," is how Easy or Difficult it is to program the damn thing (the OS). I gotta say, having taught myself the basics of both, that Macs come out ahead on this one. Windows programming is (seems to me) a nightmare of Hungarian notation -- if I ever meet Charles Simonyi, I'll punch him in his stupid face. About two months ago, I had to write a windows app using a windows message passing interface called DDE (Dynamic Data Exchange, but what the hell? Just use pipes damnit), and since I hadn't shelled out for a reference book, I had to use the MSDN tutorial pages. Blah blah blah, whatever -- it's shitty to program, their documentation is half-inscrutable and hard to find, and their interfaces are poorly designed. It sucks.
OS X, on the other hand, is a relative cinch. I'm not such a fan of Objective C, whose syntax seems all reversed to me, but I can see why some people like it. The Apple documentation? All nicely organized, in one place, as PDFs I can print out and peruse. The interfaces? They generally seem reasonable (although I take it a lot of this is 'borrowed' from Next Step, since a lot of their class-names begin with 'NS'). And the free Apple development IDE that they distribute? Sweet, with an even sweeter GUI design program. I like the whole NIB file thing. The whole experience was much more pleasant than working with Windows.
On the other hand, I usually do Java programming stuff, and the Mac support for Java is awful. OS X builds the Java VM into the system, which basically means that you're dependent on Apple to update their system whenever the Java language changes drastically. All the (Mac-using) biologists we work with had to get a paid OS X 'upgrade' in order to use the Java 5 stuff, and that only came out a year after everyone else on every other platform could use it. And now there's a new Java 6 thingie?
Okay, that's my nerd rant. I'll go back into hiding now.
I bought a Mac laptop a few years back because I was impressed by the OS. Turns out all the cools stuff was mostly eye candy... actual usability was way below what one would expect based on the hype. I'm sorry, but when you click the maximize button on a Window, it should, you know, maximize the window - not just make it a little bigger. This is one of many frustrations. What really killed me was only having one mouse button...
Needless to say, I switched back recently. Got a nice fast dual core 2 dell with 2GB for under $1000. Still haven't figured out if I want to upgrade to Vista, though.
It's not "borrowed" from NextStep, it's wholesale taken -- NeXT was Steve Jobs' company, and Apple bought the code base along with getting him back (or vice versa). (And Sun couldawouldashoulda gone the OpenStep route, but they went with AWT instead and lost the desktop forever.) Agreed on the Java support, although I'm mostly a LAMP programmer so it doesn't bother me at all. That said, while Objective C, Cocoa, and Interface Builder are generally quite easy to work with, XCode sort of blows goats (but people who use XCode to bang out a shell script can be safely ignored).
Doesn't Windows have protective software ensuring that it doesn't have small, randomly scattered crashes any more, but just a few enormous, strategicly placed crashes? Don't they build the levee really high so that when the flood eventually comes, it's really a big one?
Another nerd-reason for hating on MS is the way they've bent over so thoroughly for the content industry concerning DRM restrictions.
Vista was the last straw for me; I was raised on PCs--anyone remember the IBM PCjr?--but I just refuse to hand MS any money for an OS that is all about denying the user control over the computer, copying features from OS X, and slowing the thing down to molasses so as to encourage hardware upgrades. Not sure whether I'll go OSX or Linux but I'm done.
I think, really, the bloat and slowdown is what gets me the most. I find it hilarious that we're supposed to be excited about an 'upgrade' that slows everything down.
Arthegall, is Java on the Mac really that bad? I keep thinking that I should learn to write Mac software, and since I already know Java I'm golden. I guess maybe it's time to crack open Cocoa/Carbon and learn Objective C?
Ah, who am I kidding, I hate programming.
OK, all you mac heads, why would my wife's powerbook be so much slower on our wifi than my lenovo notebook? She thinks it dates to when she installed firefox for a school website. But I haven't heard any other complaints about firefox on OSX.
Oh, and our wireless router is a belkin pre-N, which is blazing fast for my computer and has great radio range, but might be a bit wiggy on the communication protocols since it came out before the standard was finalized. I've considered reconnecting our old wireless router to see if the apple is happier talking with it.
Y'all, we're just reprising the iPod thread. Macs are elegant. Apple obsesses over appearance. Either you're susceptible to that, or you're not. I confess I am.
As to operating systems, I periodically install a Linux to see if I could stand it. Each time, I get a little more of it to work, and it comes closer and closer to me saying, you know, I could buy me a cheap PC and run Linux.... but it would never be so pretty, either inside or out, as the Mac.
The worst thing about Macs is the prevalence of the desperately ugly and non-functional Microsoft Office. I am now writing using entirely open-source software.* I got away with it with minor hassle dealing with the last journal I published in. We will see if I regret this come time to tender this book to the publisher.
*Except Excel and Stata, I just remembered. I know of no real substitute for those. I mean, I know of R. But I haven't been able to take the time to learn R. Anyone know of a quick tutorial for R?
Anyone know of a quick tutorial for R?
Sure, start with any of all of those listed here:
http://cran.r-project.org/other-docs.html
Then there are the books:
http://www.r-project.org/doc/bib/R-books.html
On that list, Dalgaard is the elementary introduction, Faraway is also good, Venables and Ripley is the classic and Maindonald and Braun is also a good introduction. Others (especially Pinheiro & Bates, and Harrell) are also excellent, though more specialized and not introductions.
I'm pretty sure you can get Stata for Linux, by the way.
Oh I see, the Stata thing was about wanting open source, rather than its availability on Linux.
Right, thanks Kieran. Yes, Stata is fine, I was just wanting something open source instead. And I've invested so much time in getting Excel to make nice black and white graphs with no borders and light-gray gridlines that I look with no enthusiasm on having to learn all that on another program.
But one day I probably will. Thanks again.
mrh -- I think it's not that Java on the Mac is bad, so much as it's integrated. So no (easily available) third-party VMs, and you have to wait on Apple to support whatever newest version of Java that Sun puts out. And since Java's not their largest concern, that implementation will probably (a) take a year to come out, (b) cost you and your users $$$ to upgrade, and (c) have some reasonably annoying bugs in it.
I think that the book on Java is that its GUI library/framework (AWT+Swing) is poorly designed. Which is true, so much that you probably don't want to build any really large GUIifed software in it, but not so true that it's not fine for banging out some small-and-easy applications with GUIs (I do it all the time, it's not bad). For non-GUI applications, Java is totally fine -- I'm actually a big fan.
If you're going to be doing Mac-only programming, and you'll be needing some GUI or multimedia components, definitely learn Objective-C and use the whole Cocoa thing. It's worth it in the long run.
If, on the other hand, you're building something that you want to distribute to multiple platforms (linux, mac, & windows), that doesn't have a significant GUI component... my preference is Java.
I've been thinking about trying to learn another graphical toolkit that's not Java and nominally platform independent (I've been thinking about the GTK stuff) but I'm too lazy.
My laptop has a Core Duo processor, 2GB RAM, an 80GB hard drive, wifi, bluetooth, and had the OS and MS Office pre-installed and cost me $1250. Unless Macbook Pros sell at a major discount, that's half of what one costs.
The MacBook I'm typing on right now is a 1.83GB RAM/60GB HD with wifi (802.11N), bluetooth, OS X and MS Office (albeit a 30 day trial copy) installed, and they even transferred all the data from my old laptop onto it for me for free, all for under $1100. The 2GB/80GB model comes in at $200 more, at least when I was pricing three weeks ago.
Ogged speaks the truth. Windows is just fine as an operating system. I am mostly uninterested in my computer as a fashion statement or a sign of coolness (a pointless endeavor for such as me). My computer is a tool. And my PC works fine.
Kind of OT, but does anyone else find that those Mac ads in which John Hodgman plays the PC and the Mac is incarnated in the form of that smug little douchebag from Accepted leave them with a strong (though admittedly ridiculous) desire to root for Microsoft as the plucky underdog? I can't think that's what they're going for, but I can't quite see any other possible reaction.
DDE!?!
Good Lord, that protocol was in the Windows 3.x environment. I do have pity as it was a finicky pain pushing and pulling with very little feedback other than it works or it doesn't. Ugh. Thanks for the flashback.
(No offense to Ugh. Eventually we're going to run out of unique pseudonyms on the net. Why the other day, right here, someone wiped out ignorance.)
leave them with a strong (though admittedly ridiculous) desire to root for Microsoft
Yes. I find Hodgman a much more sympathetic figure -- indeed, to have a clearer personality.
And Idealist, you ascribing statements to people they didn't make. Liking Macs because they're pretty ≠ making a fashion statement or wanting to be cool. It means liking things that are pretty. Some people prefer to have good-looking things around them.
Yeah, working with DDE sucked. But ... I had to do it, because I had to talk to a second program (from a German company) that only spoke DDE.
Bleaaaaargh.
I think, really, the bloat and slowdown is what gets me the most. I find it hilarious that we're supposed to be excited about an 'upgrade' that slows everything down.
That's what kills me too -- that and the crap-ass security. So whenever one of those upgrades come out, I can expect it to slow down my box even more, but I feel like I *have* to put it on because it will make the security on the box marginally less broken.
We bought a PC for home several months after I got aTiBook at work, and kept both regularly updated. The Mac stayed almost as speedy while the Windows box has become less and less usable.
Since I don't want a Linux desktop (I hate Gnome and KDE with the fire of a thousand white-hot suns), I won't apologize for liking the pretty shiny and because Parallels is available, the next desktop will be a Mac. The PC will become a Linux-based music storage server. Or a doorstop.
Agreed, arthegall, Java's sweet spot is no longer GUI apps, although it's all I do on the server-side these days. God, I'm sick of my job.
I purchased my iBook in 2003. I think it ran me around $1300 or so at the time. My friends, who have PCs, were spending a couple hundred bucks less, but in 2007, most of them have replaced their laptops. I hardly know if this is a common experience, but mine has been remarkably hassle free.
Of course, I don't really make use of all the computing power I have; I'm running an 800MHz G4. Really, I'd be fine with a typewriter and whiteout, to be honest. But I haven't noticed a slowdown.
I could go either way on my next laptop.
A selectric can't comment on blogs. You'd be better off.
And Idealist, you ascribing statements to people they didn't make. Liking Macs because they're pretty ≠ making a fashion statement or wanting to be cool.
I did not mean to be attacking anyone in this thread. My comment was based on my observation IRL of not uncommon (IMHO) behavior. But really, I did not mean to attack anyone. And I'm sorry if it came out that way.
Some people prefer to have good-looking things around them.
Agreed. My first real computer was a Mac. It was great. And it was pretty. All true.
33: Just because my computer is a tool doesn't mean it has to be an ugly, rusted-out tool that gives me blisters every time I use it. The pretty is far from the only reason I prefer Macs for work (OSX being UNIX-based was actually the factor that got me to switch), but having an aesthetically-pleasing tool makes ME happy, and makes my day that much more pleasant, and that doesn't make me a fashion victim.
95% of the programmers at my company use macs, for two reasons. One: it's UNIX with a usable GUI/suite of productivity applications, which is something that Linux has not yet been able to provide. Two: our sysadmin had better things to do than keep configuring printing and email for everyone.
We don't use java, so I wouldn't know about taht.
Given how many hours a day I spend on a computer--and most of you, too, including you, Ogged--it seems rather silly to say that it's frivolous to care about the aesthetics and elegance of the experience.
Also, what 24 said. I seldom use windows machines any more, but whenever I do it seems like there's all this crap they try to do "for" you, and about 90% of it just annoys the shit out of me and gets in the way (this goes double for Word--how it manages to be 180% annoying, I don't know, but it does). OSX also thinks for you about stuff, but generally--not always--it's actually *right*, or at least I can see the logic of why it thinks I would want to do whatever it is that way.
And if not, you just turn off the option in preferences. Maybe it's just b/c I'm not used to the Windows OS, but I can NEVER FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE ANY WINDOWS MACHINE STOP DOING whatever godforsaken thing it keeps forcing me to do.
doesn't mean it has to be an ugly, rusted-out tool that gives me blisters every time I use it.
Absolutely true. But in my experience (and obviously, YMMV), this is not a good description of a PC.
(I hate Gnome and KDE with the fire of a thousand white-hot suns)
You don't need to use either of those, you know. It might be hard to escape one of GTK and Qt, but you don't need a full-blown desktop (I just use fluxbox), and if you do want one, you there are other options. Though the only other one I can think of offhand is ROX. Enlightenment seems moribund.
it's frivolous to care about the aesthetics and elegance of the experience
Ogged can speak for himself, obviously, but I certainly did not mean to imply that it's *frivolous* to care about the aesthetics and elegance of the experience. It obviously is not frivolous. I regret not being clear.
ANY WINDOWS MACHINE STOP DOING
I suspect this may be an application-level issue, rather than an OS-level one.
Question: for someone who is so hung up on how women look, and so dismissive of "the pretty" when it comes to computers: which do you *actually* spend more time with?
50: Fair enough. However, since Windows apps dominate Windows machines, and OSX provides much less frustrating alternatives, that alone is a good reason to prefer the latter.
Misplaced modifier in the first sentence of this post, btw.
Sun's Solaris
FUCK SOLARIS.
That is all.
53: Some of us chose to keep quiet about that out of a feeling of blog solidarity.
Hey O, have you checked out the sale page at the Apple store site? You can get refurbished laptops -- same machines, same warranty -- for significantly less (this is how I got my MacBook Pro last summer). This MBP, for example, is comparable to your laptop; if you need to bump up the RAM, just avoid buying it from Apple and the total cost is still competitve. Plus, you get the built-in iSight and all the cool iLife software.
42: Oh, go to hell in a comfortable handbasket.
for someone who is so hung up on how women look, and so dismissive of "the pretty" when it comes to computers: which do you *actually* spend more time with?
To whom was this question directed?
48: True enough -- though I do actually like the Mac desktop, and as long as I have a desire to use commercial third-party software (and I continue to have employers who are willing to spring for Mac laptops), it's going to come down to Mac vs. PC for my day-to-day frontend tool.
The post(er), Idealist. Jeez. Stop trying to take everything so personally. Do you frequently make a big deal about women's looks? No? Then chill.
48: Yeah, but most of us aren't interested in taking on the learning curve just so that we can be superior beings and have to spend hours writing code in order to create playlists.
There's a program called Launchy I hear good things about, although I think it's more of a LaunchBar clone than a Quicksilver clone. Also, there's Enso Launcher, which I know nothing about other than the involvement of Jef Raskin's kid.
Thanks for the tip... I'll take a look at them. The thing I love about Quicksilver, though, is that it's not just a launcher. I don't think either Launchy or Enso Launcher is going to give me the option to browse my iTunes library the way Quicksilver does, for example.
Here's some more info on the Apple Tax. Bottom line is that except in rare cases, the price difference isn't that big a deal, and you should base your Mac vs PC decision on whichever you think will make you happier to use.
Oh, except for, as previously noted, RAM, where Apple does mark up absurdly. However, since even a trained monkey or an unfogged commenter can install cheap third party RAM, this is avoidable.
66: That was exactly who I was thinking of in 7. How do you know Mr Neutrongodeon?
FWIW, I switched from (the old) Mac OS to Windows, and then to Linux, and then from Linux to OS X. These days OS X easily comes out tops on the criteria I was applying --- some weighted function of, roughly, stability/security + good design & ease of use + quality of work applications + quality of hardware + cost.
It's not all about surface shininess. Like those turtles, design matters all the way down. Windows is indeed "not so bad" right now, from what I hear. Even pretty good in parts. But the basic design philosophy still sucks, which affects both user-level and under-the-hood stuff in all kinds of negative ways. Linux has good bones, moral fibre from F/OSS, and the user-level stuff is catching up (slooooowly). But it's only free if your time has no value.
Obviously, I didn't intend to slag macs, given that I covet them. I just wanted to note that we're not still in the days of Windows 95/98, when the MS OS truly was a piece of shit. It does it's job now. And I'm just not convinced on the price stuff. You can jigger the comparison to make the differences seem slight, but I'm talking about laptops and assuming that someone isn't going to buy a Dell XPS, which are absurdly tricked out, nor anything other than a Macbook Pro (can you even get a 15" screen on the regular macbook?). For similarly configured systems the price difference remains huge (keep in mind that Dells never sell for the configured price, but always have either a substantial Dell discount, or easy-to-find coupons for even bigger savings. My system was configured at over $2000, but I paid $1250).
Thanks, Labs, the world is a better place for your having noted that error.
BCYALB, maybe? Let's all acknowledge that the irritating non-Hodgeman in the commercials represents well the essence of the Mac evangelist on display here.
I don't quite understand why people want MacBook Pros instead of the ordinary MacBook. Given that I rarely/never do anything too computationally difficult, the deciding fact for me is battery life, and the non-pro is so much better there.
Could be, Tim. As good an explanation as any.
It's because evil Ben is having lunch at Chez Panisse right now, for which we all hate him, and which means someone has to fulfill the necessary grammar bitchiness.
Ogged, if you covet a Mac, just get one. What are you actually doing with that money you "save"? Spending it on some other half-satisfying consumer good. You're betraying your Iranian heritage *and* America, all at the same time. Next thing, you'll end up deciding to move to a working-class neighborhood without a Whole Foods, or something.
Slate's take on the Mac ads was good. I really don't get them, since the Mac guy is so unlikable.
What are you actually doing with that money you "save"?
Uh, "save" it?
I don't know why you want a large screen on your laptop, assuming you already have a desktop. I miss the old Powerbook Duos, whose sleekness they have yet to recapitulate.
It's because evil Ben is having lunch at Chez Panisse right now, for which we all hate him
Speak for yourself. CP is good, but it's not *that* good. Plus, Alice Waters is annoying.
assuming that someone isn't going to buy a Dell XPS, which are absurdly tricked out, nor anything other than a Macbook Pro
Well, I don't know about the Dells, but the iBooks are terrifically good value -- if I was in the market for a laptop, I'd buy one over a MacBook. And I speak as someone whose desk at this very instant looks like this.
79: If you actually take the difference whenever you buy a new computer and invest it, then more power to you. But I kinda doubt it.
iBooks s/b MacBooks and MacBooks s/b MacBook Pro, obviously. Like I said, I'm not in the market for one right now.
If Kieran's desk gives him a message that says "Forbidden // You don't have permission to access /files/misc/desk.png on this server. // Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. " he has more problems than which laptop to choose.
81: I'm drinking reheated coffee and contemplating granola for breakfast. What are *you* eating?
I'm putting off eating as part of my weight-loss regimen.
86: I had oatmeal for breakfast. OTOH, I'm still remembering the meal I had here a couple of weeks ago, so I'm not liable to feel food jealousy anytime soon.
But it doesn't. OK, this one then. Diminishing returns set in long ago.
88: Well, me too, but I'm just saying.
Slol, I don't also have a desktop. Well, I do, but it's older and I put linux on it to play around with.
I'm pretty excited to see how this weight loss thing goes-- I've never tried it before. If, as experience suggests, it's pretty fast and easy because of my metabolism, I'll gloat in ways that prompt much hatred. If not, you can all ridicule me.
Oh wait, you really are skipping or postponing meals to lose weight? Labs.
I'm going to stop eating cream and cut my butter intake to see if I can fit back into my smaller pants. I think it should work. You and me can gloat together, Labs.
Wait, that's not how to do it?
JM, your pants are pretty small already.
I'm just going to substitute milk for heavy cream in my coffee for a while.
I need to lose weight. This is at odds with my tendency to fuel dissertation writing by coffee with cream and chocolate.
How do you feel about coffee with frothed condensed milk and cinnamon? How about almond brittle rather than chocolate? You may not actually have to try very hard, is what I'm suggesting here.
Will it make my thighs lean? I hate being pear-shaped in a world full of skinny jeans.
Pear-shape is a beautiful shape!
(In other words, no, there's probably little that could radically alter the shape your genetics determined for you. However, cutting down on whipped-cream mochas might diminish the, er, volume of that shape.)
98: In my experience, trying to lose weight while trying to write a dissertation is not at all a good idea. It's like trying to quit smoking while you're going through a divorce. Keep those little comforts around until the big suffering is over.
I'm a very long-time devoted Mac partisan, and I find the basic claim of the post to be hard to disagree with. If you're happy with what you got, then stick with what you got.
The only thing that would ever tempt me away from Mac would be going totally opensource, and at the moment the cost of that learning curve is too high.
Interesting finding: apparently milk in tea robs it of its beneficial cardiovascular effects. Damn, I guess Ogged was right that tea with milk is lame.
Jesus. Is there anyone here who isn't trying to lose weight?
On the other hand, if you're not already getting regular exercise, then doing so will not only help you lose weight, but will help you work better on the writing.
Pear-shape is a beautiful shape!
Agreed; but then, why cut your own butter and cream intake?
I'm not trying to be a bitch (though I am, I realize). I'm kinda bugged by the turn this thread has taken. I get that talking honestly about this stuff is good and important, but I'm uncomfortable that y'all seem to be kinda reinforcing each other's body issues?
Having met both JM and Labs, I don't think either of you should be losing weight, especially if you're doing it for aesthetic reasons. The pants thing I understand, b/c it sucks to buy new clothes, esp. when you're broke. But, still.
Oh, sure, B just wants to talk operating systems, but we go off in a corner and trade diet tips.
I do kind of agree with B., although I'm a hypocrite for saying so as I outed myself on the last thread as being unhappy with my current weight. If this turns into the general weightloss tips blog, I'll be really, really, really embarrassed.
No, we had the sane and functional dieting and exercise thread, in which I basically didn't comment, and now, smuggled into a nerd thread, those of us too squeamish to have Sensible Plans for that extra little belly-roll we didn't used to have are talking about maybe cutting back on whipped cream.
106.--I'm apple-shaped.
I think it's about time you fatties started slimming down. I expect comment quality will improve as body fat percentages decline. I too am trying to lose some fat (but gain some weight), since I can't fit into my old pants either.
I've gained quite a bit of weight since this time last year. First, I'm less depressed, so I actually eat. Second, notwithstanding being less depressed, I spend an awful lot of time sitting on my ass. I don't really care about the size/weight issue--I actually have no idea what I weigh, since I don't own a scale--though I do know that clothes that fit me last year, or were even big, are now too small.
This is all fine. I am bugged by my lack of energy and crappy posture, though. I need to start either riding my fucking bike, or else I need to sign up for a yoga class. Probably the former before the latter, as *getting to* a yoga class would be kind of difficult sans car. . . .
For the record, I'm not reinforcing anyone's issues; I'm just eating a little less.
104: I'd like to lose some weight, but lord knows I ain't tryin'.
JM, you must buy some weird apples.
109: Bullshit, JM. You're a reed. Also, if you have a belly that's anything more remarkable than "yes, women have internal organs," I'd be extremely surprised.
I just generally feel like shit. My life is a big gooshy stressball interrupted by periods of utter panic. I'm not that unhappy with my current weight -- I've been here for about 10 years -- I just wish I didn't look like someone whose spirit was broken by a metaphysics textbook.
I, personally, would prefer a "talking about body issues and what's to be done about them" thread rather than a "sane" weight loss thread of any type. Honestly, this stuff really upsets me. I wish people didn't feel this way.
I advocate riding the bike to the yoga class. Maybe I'm just soulless or something, but the idea of riding a bike for the sake of elevating the heartrate does not inspire me. It's an enjoyable mode of transportation, sure, but I'd like to arrive somewhere at the end of it.
I just wish I didn't look like someone whose spirit was broken by a metaphysics textbook.
I don't know anybody who wasn't nearly broken by finished a dissertation. The fact that you're also getting married in the midst of this, and that the marriage is complicated by immigration law, is just unbelievable--you're already a bad motherfucker for making it this far, and in a few months, you'll be DONE with it all, and have shivbunny around to nurse you back to health.
Mmm. I find people walking on treadmills curiously enraging for the same reason. Jogging is one thing -- jogging on city streets, crossing streets, having people block your way, all that can be maddening, and the treadmill makes sense. But if the exercise you want is walking, just go for a freaking walk! Does everything have to be formalized?
Well, I'm thinking bike b/c of the transportation thing, primarily; I don't give a rat's ass about my heartrate. It's just that not having a car during the week sucks, and god knows that the weather and geography here don't make bike-riding in any way unattractive. The major issue is that I'm just not all that comfortable on a bike, but if I fucking start doing it obviously I'll get more comfortable.
Eventually I'll ride it to the yoga class, b/c I really do enjoy yoga a lot. But I'm not going to try to make Big Changes All At Once, since that's a recipe for anger and failure.
I'm sorry that I seem to be lecturing y'all about the body image stuff. I'll shut up about it. I just wanted to register my unhappiness with all these smart attractive people (all of whom, for god's sake, seem on the thin side of normal to me--at least, those of you I've met) being worried about their weight. Especially because I know that thin folks playing the "I really need to lose weight" game can be a real ouch to people who *aren't* thin, and are trying to be okay with it.
wish people didn't feel this way
B, feel what way, exactly? When you say that, what I hear is you projecting something onto my fat ass that isn't really there.
119: What strikes me as even sillier is the exercise "step" you can buy for lots of money. WTF?
Honestly, this stuff really upsets me. I wish people didn't feel this way.
Me too.
Ok, cleared up before the question was asked. For the record, I don't *need* to lose weight; this is more of a slight preference for a little less fat plus curiosity about what it would be like.
Does everything have to be formalized?
Well, to backtrack on my earlier comment's implications, there is a formal element that can make sense. When I want to go for a walk with the purpose of getting exercise, I find that changing into funny-looking clothing helps me overcome that "oh my god, people are looking at me do weird exercise-y things in public!" anxiety. And the official Changing Into Exercise Clothes lets me then say, "It is okay to start sweating; I will just change out of this shirt when I get home!"
Of course, now I need to find pleasant walks around my new apartment.
Does everything have to be formalized?
Yes!
119: Amen. Also, why are you paying money to walk? *There's* a conspicuous consumption thing I can get enraged about.
118: Absolutely. Give yourself a break, Cala.
118: Word.
As for feeling like shit, getting regular exercise of almost any kind, if you're not already doing so, is just about the best thing you can do for your general mental health.
Well, for example, I'm a perfectly reasonable weight health and esthetics-wise. While I'm heavier than I was before I had kids, it's not a big enough difference that I should fret about it. But I do fret about it. Which is nuts, and being nuts is bad.
Jack's way skinny, and you're fairly skinny, or were a year ago the only time I met you. The fact that the two of you perceive your overweightness to be significant enough to take action about also sounds kind of nuts. (I've never met Cala, but my guess is that she's also fretting about nothing.) And the fact that so many people seem to be nuts about their weight makes it harder not to be: that is, if I get sane, am I really getting sane, or am I just blinding myself to the fact that I'm a repulsive cow?
Here's a question: who gives a rat's ass if you're a repulsive cow? That's not your fucking problem; you don't have to look at yourself.
Agh, I'll just shut up over here.
Agh! Sorry! No! Don't! Please! I'm sorry I made you feel jumped on, really I am.
Jack's way skinny, and you're fairly skinny, or were a year ago the only time I met you. The fact that the two of you perceive your overweightness to be significant enough to take action about also sounds kind of nuts. (I've never met Cala, but my guess is that she's also fretting about nothing.)
The upside to this, as long as it stays sane, is that you never get too far off what you want to be. It's much easier to work off 5 or 10 pounds than say, 40.
As for feeling like shit, getting regular exercise of almost any kind, if you're not already doing so, is just about the best thing you can do for your general mental health.
Yeah. I try. And it does help. I just feel like I need a yearlong nap.
JM, I had an awesome ballet class this week. Even though I felt chunky because ballet teachers like people who have longer legs. Barre work is fun.
Oh, I'm not trying to make anyone shut up, and I'm not particularly tortured by worries about my weight, and I'm pretty sure that I look fine for all practical purposes, and so forth. I'm just agreeing that there's a whole lot of crazy, at least in my head and from what other people say about themselves in their heads as well, going on about people's weights, and there's some value in pointing out how crazy it all is rather than letting it pass because we're all like that.
This is so close to completion. It's been like 5 years since there's been a decent gym at this end of the valley. The delays are driving me nuts.
Yes, in response to B's 111, I'd advocate doing the former to get to the latter.
In terms of not enjoy riding for the sake of riding, I must say that is one of the strangest responses to riding I have ever heard. Were you ever a child? If yes, don't you miss it? Besides the simple child-like pleasure of riding a bike, I think cycling is one of the few safe yet thrilling activities one can do. I bet that you live in a city. I do too, although luckily not an American one where everyone drives big ass cars and wants to kill you, but a European one where everyone drives small cars and treats you with respect. Riding through the city of Paris is like a roller coaster. I'm probably a little bit too aggressive with my weaving through traffic and drafting off cars and all, but I try to limit my risks by being extremely aware of all the cars and scooters around me. Of course, after a while I get sick of riding in the city, so I go to Bois de Boulogne. Sure, riding in circles isn't like riding in the Alps, but it's still really fun. I just invented a new game to make my riding in the bois more enjoyable. Basically, you get one point for every person you pass, and you lose one point for every person that passes you. It's a decent way to motivate yourself, and you can tweak the game by adding rules depending on the terrain, wind, or whatever.
One last thing: do NOT use your iPod when riding. It is very dangerous. You need to hear everything around you (so don't even think about using one ear bud).
Another last thing: Central Park and Prospect Park are both very fun to ride in. Both parks have nice little hills, and the road is curvy. I wouldn't enjoy it 5 times a week, but why not go 2-3 times during the week, and then take a trip to the suburbs or countryside on the weekend? If you ride 1 hour 4 times a week, that should be close to enough to lose 1 pound a week, which is the maximum rate you want to lose. Otherwise, you lose muscle. Add in walking 1-2km a day, and you could be very fit.
137: Actually I live in a pretty residential and suburban-feeling city.
I didn't learn to ride until I was a teenager. Whether or not this has to do with my feeling of anxious discomfort on a bike, I don't know. I do know that at one point--in Seattle, no less--I rode often enough despite this feeling that I was in really good shape (though a lot bigger than when I started getting depressed and not eating and beginning my slide into being grossly out of shape), so I also know that I can get over it, or at least ignore it. Having some freedom of movement during the week is a decent tradeoff; I just, being me, need to make the first few times I foray out on the bike low-key enough situations that I don't get too spazzed out by them. Getting Mr. B. to come with on a weekend would help; also, not having to 'worry' about getting home in time to pick PK up from school.
In any case, I have a doctor's appointment on Wednesday about a mile away on a straight downhill slope. And it's mid-morning, which means that even if I end up *walking* the bike back up the hill home, I'll be back in plenty of time to get PK. So I'm planning to make that the maiden voyage.
And as you say, once I get out and realize "oh, this is actually not that hard, and whee!" It'll be fine. It's just that I have a hard time starting new things, especially if they involve doing physical things in public or moving myself around an area I'm not intimately familiar with. It's called being an anxious freak.
I'd love to be able to get around on my bike, but NYC traffic just terrifies me as a bicyclist. Driving in NYC doesn't bother me at all, but being out there on a bike frightens me completely.
I used to love cycling in town, and it never scared me. Now my nerves are different and I don't have the confidence I'd need to do it safely, I think. Gah.
I'm not frightened of traffic generally -- I think I'd ride a bike in some other cities. NYC traffic seems more likely to kill you than it is in other places I've lived, even Boston.
I'm not at all frightened of traffic if I'm walking, but I just don't feel in control of a bike enough. But since all the roads here are three times wider than they need to be, I'm hoping I can cope.
being out there on a bike frightens me completely
As it would any rational person in NYC. Lots of good places to ride a bike, in city traffic is not one.
The only thing I have to say about bicyclists is that they should stay off the fucking sidewalk. That's for pedestrians.
Here's a question: who gives a rat's ass if you're a repulsive cow? That's not your fucking problem; you don't have to look at yourself.
Is this for real?
It's a fair thing to say -- anyone who'd get bent out of shape about my being a repulsive cow, whether or not I am one, is an asshole. Fretting about what assholes will think is not a sensible way to live your life.
It's a fair thing to say -- anyone who'd get bent out of shape about my being a repulsive cow, whether or not I am one, is an asshole.
Of course... as long as you're happy with how you look, that's all that matters. But I took B's comment to mean that you just shouldn't give a shit about the way you look at all.
138: As everyone has said a million times about exercise, start slow and short, and work your way up.
Why do you have a tough time doing physical things in public? You don't seem to be one to especially care what others think. I'm actually a bike racer, so I wear the whole lycra kit at stuff, so I'm used to funny stares, but I really don't give a fuck. The sport is fun. And the clothing is functional.
I haven't ridden in NYC, but I have ridden in NJ which probably is just as hellish. Besides the obvious stuff for staying safe (making sure your brakes work well, wearing a helmet, being alert, having an "out"), a major aspect for safety is being "a part of the road." As a cyclist, I have the same rights and responsibilities as cars. As the saying goes, "Bikes Belong." To show that you belong, you need to force cars to respect you. Don't ride in the gutter (i.e. right next to the curb). Use a fair portion of the road. Make sure the cars see you! Wear bright clothing. Use arm signals when you turn. Look drivers directly in the eye if they do something asshole-ish. I generally don't curse at them, but occasionally you have to curse and give them the finger or even hit their car with your fist. A smarter thing to do is to calmly say, "Look, you almost just killed me because of your impatience. Please drive more carefully."
As lame as it sounds, it is true that you have to ride defensively. Try to be alert as possible. Even though it's fun to zone out, it is dangerous. I constantly take quick glances over my right and left shoulder to make sure I am aware of passing cars. Use your peripheral vision. Use your localized hearing so you know when a car is passing you.
Can't you bring your bike in the NYC subway? If so, take your bike to one of the parks. If not, try to find some route through the city to the park that follows quiet roads.
It's completely for real. Blah blah, internalization of male gaze, etc. If I'm fat and disgusting, why should it bother me? Lack of health bothers people--we don't need to tell them it should. How one looks isn't anyone's fucking business, and since I don't (or shouldn't, ideally) view myself as an object to be looked at, I shouldn't care.
Of course, I *do* care. Not, myself, so much about weight, in large part because I tend to be on the "acceptable" scale of women's body shape and size (but obviously not entirely, since lots of attractive people worry about this stuff). I care about shit like what I wear. But my caring about this stuff is largely because of shallow bullshit that I wish I didn't care about.
148: I care because I don't like looking awkward or stupid. It bothers me that I feel this way (and god knows I try my damndest not to let on about it when my kid's around), but there it is. Part of why I'm so adamant on the "who gives a rat's ass" thing is because that's how I steel myself against that kind of thing.
This is a cool way to plan your route:
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/
Riding in NYC isn't irrational.
This kind of riding in NYC is irrational: http://www.digave.com/videos/ Click on the top left video.
Meh, how you look matters, and will matter for as long as there are humans. Just like people would rather be around someone kind than mean, they'd rather be around someone attractive than not. Where we draw the line about how much it should matter and when is up for debate, but saying "worrying about looks is shallow and we should all get over it" isn't going to help.
B: Beginners always look awkward and a little silly. It's extremely difficult to play the part when you are just starting out. Unless you know someone who can coach you, it's inevitable to make some mistakes as a beginner. (Actually, not a bad idea. Go into a local bike shop and ask if there are any women's rides in the area.) But if you never start or never get into it, then you will never get past this stage.
Besides, only really big assholes would rag on someone riding a bike in California. I spent some time in San Diego, and it's awesome. It's almost as pervasive as European cities.
And only the biggest asshole in the world would rag on a woman riding a bike. Everyone knows that women on bikes are hott.
Where we draw the line about how much it should matter and when is up for debate, but saying "worrying about looks is shallow and we should all get over it" isn't going to help.
The point with weight is that where we draw the line about it, in this culture, is presumptively going to be insane. You're right that looks, generally, matter -- how fat plays into that esthetically is so fucked up in 21st C America that you're going to get much more reasonable results not worrying about it at all than worrying about it a reasonable amount.
If I'm fat and disgusting, why should it bother me? Lack of health bothers people--we don't need to tell them it should.
External appearance is a decent proxy for self-care, which goes beyond simple "lack of health". (That makes it sound binary, which it isn't.) Yeah, some people are gonna look bad no matter what they do, and learning to not care about stuff that's truly beyond your control is valuable, but it sounds to me like you're making a much more radical argument than that.
How one looks isn't anyone's fucking business, and since I don't (or shouldn't, ideally) view myself as an object to be looked at, I shouldn't care.
External appearance is a means of communication, in ways that go beyond being an object to be looked at. You can argue that the signifiers in our current culture are fucked up, but there are always going to be signifiers of some sort, and as long as that's the case, you *do* need to care (on some level).
But my caring about this stuff is largely because of shallow bullshit that I wish I didn't care about.
And I'd suggest that generalizing from that is a mistake.
I count seeing the 1984 Macintosh for the first time as a minor defining event. I remember it as being a very well organised machine: the first five seconds told you this. It had a compressed, blunted oblong form as if it were the biceps of a Transformer robot (although, like a CT scanner, it was beige to help take away the future shock). The screen was small, white - not black - and the graphics were very, very crisp. You were compelled to go up very close: you sort of had to peer into it to make your graphics. And to help you with that it had fat bits.
I didn't say "it's shallow and we should just get over it." I said that pointing out in blunt terms that it doesn't fucking matter helps me, personally (and I know you're the same way) deal with myself when I'm getting all self-conscious about something dumb.
153: I realize that. Knowing it doesn't make it go away, though--like I said--just starting with things that feel manageable does. Hence my plans for Wednesday.
Speaking of bikes, though, I'm thinking of getting a new one (I know, this is dumb, given that I have one that's perfectly good). My current bike is an old Trek hybrid, and it's heavy as shit. I'm tempted by the new lighter women's bikes, but I admit that in terms of pure aesthetics the cruisers appeal. One of the things I'm not good at (and hence anxious about) is shifting gears; but the town I live in is somewhat hilly, in a minor kind of way (i.e., it isn't Seattle). It seems like a cruiser, letting me sit more upright, would make me *feel* more comfortable, but would it fucking suck on the hills?
you're going to get much more reasonable results not worrying about it at all than worrying about it a reasonable amount.
Especially since it's really impossible not to worry about it at all.
External appearance is a decent proxy for self-care
Bull. At least, if by "self-care" you mean taking care of one's self, rather than spending a lot of time and energy on living up to the broader society's ideas of how people "should" look.
there are always going to be signifiers of some sort, and as long as that's the case, you *do* need to care
Why? Do you mean merely that caring about these things is, on some level, practical, inasmuch as people will pass judgment on you? Or do you mean that people should, in some kind of moral imperative way, care? B/c the former, sure; the latter, no.
kind of nice to go outside and play Candyland on the front lawn in your jammies
Charlottesville's pretty hilly, but it boasts a large number of fixed-gear and freewheel riders. A friend has a matte-black cruiser that looks surprisingly bad-ass. There seems to be a period of adjustment—and the fixed-gear folks can be annoyingly self-righteous—but it's quite doable.
Well, the cruisers at the local Trek shop aren't fixed gear--they're at least 3, some are 5-speeds. Which seems like it'd do. What I'm primarily wondering about is whether sitting in a more upright position on a big fat seat that'll support my big fat ass would make me feel less uncomfortable. Certainly your standard bike seat makes my pubes sore, which doesn't help.
Oh yeah, the single speeders. More power to 'em. But give me the technology any day.
You can easily buy a saddle that suits you, independent of the bike you buy.
True. The question is, upright vs. leaning forward. Upright seems like it would be more comfortable, but is it going to mean working a lot harder on the hills, to the point where I'm going to leave the goddamn thing in the garage?
Yeah, upright's easier on your back, but I don't know of its effect on your pubes. On hills, you stand on the pedals also with an upright posture. It's not that hard, but it takes some getting used to.
IME, no. The last time I biked a lot was in the Peace Corps, on some fairly respectable hills (did I ever mention the time I biked 50 miles for a party to find out it had been cancelled? Phones are great, and we should all appreciate them.) and hills didn't seem to be a huge problem sitting upright -- you just drop into low gear.
Yes a cruiser would suck in any of the following cases:
1) uphills
2) downhills (you need to build up your confidence, but going downhill at 20-30+ mph is fun.)
2) going faster than 15mph
3) riding longer than 60 minutes non-stop with the goal of a workout.
A cruiser would make you *feel* more comfortable on short easy rides, but once you get into longer rides and build more confidence, you wouldn't be happy on it. You will feel like you are being held back by it.
In other words, a cruiser is for cruising.
I would first suggest riding what you have assuming it's safe. Why is shifting difficult for you? Does it have gripshift shifters or thumb/forefinger shifters? Shifting should be intuitive, whichever system you have, because, ideally, you are pedaling at around a cadence of 60-100 rpm.
If riding is enjoyable, and you do it often enough, then I would buy myself a new one.
DON'T buy a bike for aesthetics. Like most sports, having the right equipment is crucial to enjoying the sport. Assuming you want to do "fitness riding," which I would define as rides between 0.5-2 hours long on roads or bike paths or light gravel/dirt roads, then a fitness hybrid makes sense.
http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1323013&f=26
It's not a bad place to start.
If you end up really liking the sport, you would eventually get a road bike, which cost a lot of money, but if you look at the cost/mile ridden or cost/hour it is far less than most other sports.
Here is a decent road bike:
http://www2.trekbikes.com/bikes/bike.php?bikeid=1407003&f=4
Sitting upright is not what you want if you actually want a "workout." Now, I put that in quotes because calling something a workout makes most people instinctively dislike it. For me, going to do a workout in a gym would be hell. But, riding a bike fast is fun. So, ideally, the workout is fun.
That is fantastic. I'll have to add one to my bike.
Bull. At least, if by "self-care" you mean taking care of one's self, rather than spending a lot of time and energy on living up to the broader society's ideas of how people "should" look.
I said "decent" not "perfect", and I'll stand by it. I'm not saying that unless you spend 9 hours a day in the gym and dress only in Armani, you suck at self-care. I'm saying that if you eat a reasonably healthy diet, and get a moderate amount of exercise, you'll probably look okay. (Yes, I realize that's not the case for everyone.) I'm betting that most people who look like "repulsive cows" don't do that. (This is not a judgment.) (At this point I kinda feel like I should post a photo of myself.)
Do you mean merely that caring about these things is, on some level, practical, inasmuch as people will pass judgment on you?
Yes. And you can frame it in a negative way if you'd like, but I don't think that's useful.
Oh yeah, and if you're going to be riding on the roads at all regularly, don't get a cruiser. Get some kind of hybrid.
I'm saying that if you eat a reasonably healthy diet, and get a moderate amount of exercise, you'll probably look okay.
Exactly.
I'm betting that most people who look like "repulsive cows" don't do that.
And I'm betting that most people who say " look like a repulsive cow" don't. Which is why, if your personality is similar to my own, saying to yourself when you're in those moods "oh fuck it, if I look repulsive, that's the problem of the people looking at me, not mine" can serve as a good reality check.
The word "repulsive" is inherently judgmental. If what you mean is that people who are obviously and grossly obese are probably also unhealthy, no kidding. But calling such people repulsive cows, or saying that people should care about how they look, is assholish: people who have serious health problems don't need to be mocked or scolded for it.
162: Yes. Buying a cruiser is for cruising around the beach. Buying a bike is for riding. There's a difference.
Upright is more comfortable for going long slow and easy.
You want a slight bend at your lower back for aerodynamics, but also for biomechanics. If you are sitting upright, it is very difficult to use your butt muscles to pedal. Leaning forward uses all of your butt muscles.
Your back position shouldn't really affect your saddle comfort. A big part is finding a saddle that fits you. Find a bike shop that at least lets you try a couple and hopefully gives you credit if you exchange the one that came on your bike. Good quality bike shorts make a HUGE difference. And, unfortunately, no matter what there will be an uncomfortable break in period, but you will get used to it soon enough.
I said "decent" not "perfect", and I'll stand by it. I'm not saying that unless you spend 9 hours a day in the gym and dress only in Armani, you suck at self-care. I'm saying that if you eat a reasonably healthy diet, and get a moderate amount of exercise, you'll probably look okay. (Yes, I realize that's not the case for everyone.) I'm betting that most people who look like "repulsive cows" don't do that. (This is not a judgment.) (At this point I kinda feel like I should post a photo of myself.)
I'm repeating myself here, but we're talking past each other. I'm not, and I don't think Bitch is, arguing that there's any moral imperative to refuse to consider the impression you make on anyone else.
My point is that weight, particularly, is an area where too many people in the US are insane, and it makes it very difficult, to the point of impossibility sometimes, to be sanely concerned with the impression your weight is making on anyone else.
To repersonalize this -- I'm reasonably attractive at my current weight, or so people tell me, and I have no reason to believe they're all blowing smoke up my ass. I am also at a weight where people would feel justified being harshly critical of me for it. (I actually haven't drawn much shit for my weight lately, I'm not dating, which is where it would generally come up, but Tia, who's exactly my height and weight, has blogged about it a fair amount.) People being harshly critical of someone with my build are (a) assholes, and (b) reasonably common.
The number of loons out there on this particular subject makes it really hard to pay attention to sanely; I think the most sensible thing to do is to pay as little attention to it as possible.
I'm about 40 lbs. too heavy and don't like it much at all. If I were fat and jolly, there wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but a lot of my overweight comes from a lack of enthusiasm, specifically enthusiasm for exercising. I also drink too much, which is related to lack of enthusiasm. So I'd say if Cala is understanding her overweight as a symptom of other things, more than just worried about body image, then she should work on it from that point of view.
172: Looking back at that, anyone being harshly critical of anyone else's weight is being an asshole, regardless of the weight in question; I should have made that clear.
171: This is all pretty helpful. I'm not at all sure that, in fact, "long slow and easy" isn't what I want, since I'm after biking as transportation rather than for fitness, but the butt muscle thing explains my intuitive sense of what the downside would be.
Basically I'm obviously just going to stick with the bike I have and see, in a few months, if I'm using it enough to justify buying another, and if so, what it is I want at that time.
Thanks for the explanations.
The word "repulsive" is inherently judgmental. If what you mean is that people who are obviously and grossly obese are probably also unhealthy, no kidding. But calling such people repulsive cows, or saying that people should care about how they look, is assholish:
I don't see saying "people should care about how they look" as at all equivalent to calling people repulsive cows. Would I go up to a complete stranger and tell them either that they should care how they look or that they're a repulsive cow? Hell no. Would I tell someone I cared about that they should care how they look? Sure. Would I call them a repulsive cow? No fucking way.
But this all started because you said people *shouldn't* care about how they looked. *That's* what I'm really disagreeing with.
people who have serious health problems don't need to be mocked or scolded for it.
Again with the binariness. (Binarity?) First off, no one deserves to be mocked or scolded over this shit. But to the extent it's an issue it's an issue for people who have only minor health issues as well, or who might develop health issues.
But this all started because you said people *shouldn't* care about how they looked. *That's* what I'm really disagreeing with.
Again, can we agree that this statement makes a lot more sense in the specific context of weight, and weight in a country that's absolutely insane on the topic?
The only reason I'd be tempted to work out more, aside from the nice endorphin benefits, is so that there was something in my life that I didn't feel like I completely sucked at.
In which case the issue is health, not how one looks.
Well.. "long slow and easy" is much better on a fitness hybrid once you hit that point where you are comfortable on the bike. Using it more than once a week should get you at that point.
Also, cruisers are hella inefficient for transportation.
If you have other bike-related questions, you can email me. I always enjoy helping others enjoy the sport.
Totally off-topic, but this Bouchard Père et Fils wine I am drinking has the nicest bouquet I have ever smelled.
178: That's a bit of a catch-22 because one can only get good at most sports if one practices. That's why it's crucial to find one you enjoy before you are good at it. Practicing (working out, training, whatever) should be fun.
Insane? Surely one of the difficulties of living in a modern society is the abundance of foods with high energy density and the lack of physical activity in everyday life.
The numbers suggest that weight, collectively, is being put on slowly. If you're happy where you are (and personally I think I more or less am, now) then there's not a problem. What no one wants is insidious gain; but to be conscious of something like that, you need some sort of self image. And I think the stress involved with that is to do with not knowing what that image should be. This is where sport is incredibly useful: it provides an alternative way of modelling yourself. Is my time as good as it could be? is less of a worry than am I fat?
My point is that weight, particularly, is an area where too many people in the US are insane, and it makes it very difficult, to the point of impossibility sometimes, to be sanely concerned with the impression your weight is making on anyone else.
I understand where you're coming from. I guess I disagree that it's impossible to be sanely concerned about this stuff, although I'm fully aware that that's due in part to the fact that I'm a guy.
The only other point I'd make is that regardless of how much you weigh, being more conscious of how your clothes fit and hang can make a huge difference, not that the clothing industry in this country always makes it easy for heavier people to find clothes that will flatter them. (Shopping at Nordstrom a couple of weeks ago made me keenly aware of just how much easier it is for men than women, though.) I know from personal experience that even though I may not be happy with my current weight, the way I dress can heavily influence how I feel about myself.
Surely one of the difficulties of living in a modern society is the abundance of foods with high energy density and the lack of physical activity in everyday life.
This conversation is maddening, because while what you say is true, it's not what I was talking about. Yes, there are problems with the modern way of life that make it difficult to maintain a healthy level of fitness and the weight that would go with it. Absolutely. I agree with that.
Entirely separately (maybe not entirely, but separately) we live in a society obsessed with the esthetic impact of fat in a completely unrealistic and insane way. The latter fact makes it very difficult for women in America (the UK may be different) to think or talk about weight reasonably.
What's maddening about it, I suspect, is that Josh is conflating health and appearance, which is precisely the kind of thing that you and I think is wrong.
How about this:
Conflating health and appearance is more rational than conflating health and weight.
I'd say they're both equally irrational.
186: I'm not conflating them, I'm saying they're related, at least to some degree. And Charlie articulated exactly what I meant.
People shouldn't rag on uprights too much. Uprights are great for transportation if you live somewhere that has genuinely no hills at all (e.g. The Netherlands where everyone rides Dutch Uprights), but once you get any hills at all (even really little ones) you need something lighter and with more speeds. In say Davis California they might be useful for regular transportation, but most places have at least little hills.
If only we had bike paths everywhere like they do in civilized northern europe. You don't have to be afraid of cars, and pedestrians don't have to be afraid of you, everyone has their own little road.
If only we had bike paths everywhere like they do in civilized northern europe
*Swoon*
Personally, I'm fairly catholic when it comes to body shape preferences, and I can't believe I'm alone. It's difficult to make reliable assumptions about what 'society' thinks.
But sure, there are media conventions, to the point where 'photographs' of women are really no more than illustrations or cartoons. And yes, these conventions create extra, unwanted stress. Media representations of women exist to support advertising, and advertising is often concerned with getting those who aren't 'inner-directed' to focus on status differences. A society in which lots of people are getting larger presents an opportunity to stake out a new kind of status difference. This is a kind of parasitism, and I don't think it's going to go away altogether until the pond dries up. But people failing to handle a situation is not new.
on a big fat seat that'll support my big fat ass
B, what was that you said back in 120 again?
Speak for yourself. CP is good, but it's not *that* good.
I concur. (Though the elderflower soda one of my companions got was excellent.)
Did you go to the cafe, or to the downstairs?
The cafe. Downstairs doesn't appear to be open for lunch, plus it's significantly spendier. I have to admit that the downstairs dinner menu was a lot more impressive than the upstairs menu, as one would, I suppose, expect.
I also thought it was funny that one of the salads (the one I got, in fact) was described as consisting of rocket and frisée. "Rocket"? This ain't Britain.
The cafe is, IME, unremarkable in the context of Bay Area fine dining; I never understood what the fuss was about CP when I'd only been to the cafe. Then I went to the downstairs... and I got it.
Unfortunately, my next really good "fine dining"-style meal probably won't be until the next time I'm in NYC.
OK, I think my point was too subtle. Let's revisit:
Especially because I know that thin folks playing the "I really need to lose weight" game can be a real ouch to people who *aren't* thin, and are trying to be okay with it.
I have seen the party photos and you are of a healthy weight. I am not of a healthy weight.
I recognize you may not intend it this way, but describing part of you as "fat," even though you intend it as a positive, still sounds a lot like the "I need to lose weight" game, and is hurtful in just the way you describe.
201: Oh! My bad, you're completely right. Sorry about that.
That sounded flip, but I stand corrected and sincerely apologize.
Mostly off-topic, but: Steve Jobs calls on the music industry to ditch DRM altogether.
