

Don't assume it could never happen. The Normans did it once, and they could do it again. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.MrJonno wrote:There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else
Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion
Don't listen to him! Assume it won't happen. Darwin will be pleased.Ian wrote:Don't assume it could never happen. The Normans did it once, and they could do it again. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.MrJonno wrote:There is never going to be conscription in the UK most the population would just tell the government to piss off (General strike beats any firearms). I do love our complete lack of patriotism wouldnt want to be anywhere else
Not that there could possible be any need , sure someone might lob a few ICBM at us but no one is seriously going to bother with an amphibious invasion
No, but we have a ravening horde of Canucks just over the border.klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.
... and even more ravenous hordes of Mexicans on the other side. The dangers of a two-front war.Gawdzilla wrote:No, but we have a ravening horde of Canucks just over the border.klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.
Oh, we've learned from the Germans. First Canada, then Mexico. This is why we have such good relations with Mexico right now.klr wrote:... and even more ravenous hordes of Mexicans on the other side. The dangers of a two-front war.Gawdzilla wrote:No, but we have a ravening horde of Canucks just over the border.klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.
Go piss on the grave of Dermot Mc Murrough on my behalf will ye?klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.
Gawdzilla wrote:No, but we have a ravening horde of Canucks just over the border.klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.
Send Gawd over first. Then you can come over and we'll have some beers.Woodbutcher wrote:Gawdzilla wrote:No, but we have a ravening horde of Canucks just over the border.klr wrote:Meh. You Yanks never had to face the Vikings and then the Normans in quick succession.![]()
I'm curious about this as well. I'm hoping that maintenance level will be easier than losing level, because I can't keep dedicating so much time to this. Just have to get there and see.Ayaan wrote:The problem is, once you lose the weight, you still have to eat less. If you weighed 200 lbs and lost down to 125 lbs, you can't eat like someone who has always weighed 125 lbs. To maintain that, you have to both eat less and exercise more than someone who has always weighed that. Metabolism plays a role too - and once that gets screwed up, you can wind up eating 700 calories a day, exercising two hours a day, and still fighting like hell for every ounce lost.
That's because when you semistarve yourself, your body lowers your metabolism to try to make up for it. That's the part that Coito keeps missing.amused wrote:I'm limiting calories to around 1500 a day, and have increased my rollerblading to 15.5 miles most days, which the various calculators estimate is around 800 calories burned. So I'm running a daily calorie deficit of about 1300 calories off a 2000 normal budget. At that rate I *should* be losing 2 pounds a week using the basic math of 3500 calories per pound, but I'm closer to 1 pound in actuality.
That is a consideration. 1500 kcals /day just doesn't seem sustainable (to maintain a healthy lifestyle). I think there comes a point where you need to stop worrying about pounds and start thinking about other metrics.Warren Dew wrote:That's because when you semistarve yourself, your body lowers your metabolism to try to make up for it. That's the part that Coito keeps missing.amused wrote:I'm limiting calories to around 1500 a day, and have increased my rollerblading to 15.5 miles most days, which the various calculators estimate is around 800 calories burned. So I'm running a daily calorie deficit of about 1300 calories off a 2000 normal budget. At that rate I *should* be losing 2 pounds a week using the basic math of 3500 calories per pound, but I'm closer to 1 pound in actuality.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests