northshorebamaman

quote:

---

Am I Essentially Doomed To Weight Loss/Diabetes Medicine?

---

quote:

---

I'm 5'7" and up until 5 years ago weighed around 160-165. Now I'm at 195 and the heaviest I've ever been. BMI is around 29.50. I've gained that 30 lbs over the last 2 years, especially the last year. The last two times I've had blood tests, my A1C has been pre-diabetic at 6.3, only 0.2 from being declared diabetic.

---

What the hell? No.

I was in far shittier shape than that 10 years ago after a botched surgery left me in a wheelchair for a couple years. I could technically walk, but barely more than a few steps. Before that, I had been active enough to stay relatively fit despite loving beer and eating like shite, but that caught up fast once I was stuck in a chair. I shot up to 270 (5'8") pretty quickly, got diagnosed as prediabetic, and got put on metformin.

Luckily, I had recently developed an extreme fear of diabetes because most of the people at my physical therapy clinic were depressed, overweight guys who had just lost a foot or a leg. So when I got that diagnosis, it scared me enough to make immediate, massive changes to my diet and gave me the drive to get physically fit again.

And I didn’t start by doing some heroic bullshite. I started by getting up and walking to the bathroom, then trying to walk a little farther every day. You don’t have to immediately run half-marathons or spend all your free time at the gym. Just do something small, then vow to do it a little longer, a little faster, or a little better the next time.

After a couple months, my doctor took me off the metformin. He also took me off the hypertension meds I’d been on since my 20s. A year later I was 150 pounds and in a massively better mental state too.

So no, it would be absurd to throw in the towel at a 29 BMI and act like medication is your inevitable fate. You’re not doomed. You’re at the warning-light stage, which is when you still have a ton of power to change the outcome.

quote:

---

That's more than like 90% are willing to do, including me, and also more than what most people's bodies would allow.

---

Bro, if you don’t want to do it or physically can’t, fine. Nobody’s saying everyone has the time, body, schedule, or circumstances for it.

But we’re talking about under two hours a day of 'brisk' walking, not BUD/S training. It's depressing that basic human movement now gets treated like some elite athletic demand.

quote:

---

California's largest wildfire of the year was started by a sailor stuck on an isolated island who fired a flare gun to attract attention.

---

What a maroon.

quote:

---

Why would they use missiles if they're so successful at cybercrime, for e.g... They've flooded all the G7 countries with their orcs, and it's more effective than any weapon, undermining the foundations of our civilization.

---

That's a different argument.

The question is whether it is rational to assume Russia has no usable nuclear capability left and therefore treat direct escalation with them as low-risk.

Russia using cheaper asymmetric tools does not prove its missile force is fake. It proves Russia prefers tools that create damage while staying below the threshold of open war with the USA. That is exactly the same escalation logic I’m talking about.

Cyberattacks, influence ops, sabotage, proxies, and threats all let Russia pressure the West without forcing the kind of direct response that launching missiles at Western countries would invite. That does not mean the nuclear threat is imaginary. It means they understand the difference between harassment and direct war.

quote:

---

Yes but the very important difference was when Russia armed Vietnam to protect it from US invasion it wasn't giving them weapons to strike US oil facilities on US soil.

---

Russia is being attacked inside Russia by the country Russia invaded, against targets tied to Russia’s own war effort. That is not remotely the same category as Russia striking oil facilities in Texas or Louisiana.

Ukraine hitting Russian military and energy targets connected to Russia’s invasion is not the same as NATO attacking Moscow, and it is not the same as Russia attacking American facilities inside the United States. That distinction is exactly why Russia bitches, threatens, and escalates rhetorically, but still stops short of openly striking NATO territory.

quote:

---

The threat of nukes isn't a talking point after those 2 operations.

---

It was hyperbolic shorthand for a hot war with a nuclear power.

Because no one wants to risk a nuclear exchange over a Coca-Cola bottling plant?

quote:

---

So you're a mind reader too. Assuming you know me. lo-fricking-l.

And you're proving just how thick you are. Ate up with politics. I don't give a shite about jokes at a roast. Here, I'll repeat it for you... I don't give jack shite about a roast joke. I'm talking about the celebration (among some) that went on when Charlie Kirk was murdered. He got killed for words. Disgusting.

Were the deaths of Versace, Harvey Milk and Tupac celebrated? They certainly weren't by me. In fact, I took no joy in the deaths of the leaders of Iran. That it happened can get chalked up to FAFO. They brought it on themselves, but I found no reason to dance over the fact.

The same with those two nitwits in Minneapolis who FAFO out with ICE agents. Was I happy they died? No. Have I ever "celebrated" a death? No. Did I celebrate the people that little douchebag Rittenhouse in Milwaukee shot? No. They all tried to play games in the wrong place and FAFO.

Okay... Now I get to cosplay the mind reader. So you celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk, is that right? Figures.

---

Not only are you not a mind reader, but apparently the written word escapes you as well.

Because you’re arguing against a position I never took.

I never said “celebrating murder is good.” I said people’s moral outrage about jokes and reactions becomes wildly inconsistent depending on whether they emotionally identify with the victim. That’s why you've now immediately expanded into qualifiers, context, FAFO logic, “they brought it on themselves,” distinctions between celebration vs satisfaction, etc.

You literally demonstrated the point in your own post.

“The leaders of Iran? FAFO.”
“The ICE situation? FAFO.”

Notice how quickly the conversation stops being “all joy over death is disgusting” and turns into contextual analysis once the dead person is someone you dislike or blame for their circumstances.

That’s my point. Thanks for proving it.

Also, no, I never said I celebrated Charlie Kirk’s murder. You added that because internet politics has mushed your brain into “if you criticize my framing you must secretly support the other side.” Disagreeing with your inconsistency is not the same thing as endorsing murder.

"A difficult distinction for you to make, I'm sure." :lol:

quote:

---

The street isn’t open because we are cutting off China’s oil. Anything else is stupid

---

So the strategy is to intentionally allow one of the most important shipping chokepoints on earth to remain disrupted?

How does that hurt China without also hurting the US, our allies, and the global economy through higher oil prices, shipping costs, insurance rates, manufacturing disruption, and inflation? China is not some isolated target floating in space. The global economy is interconnected.

And if the US starts accepting the closure or destabilization of major maritime trade routes instead of keeping them open, what exactly happens to the entire post-WWII naval and trade system we built and depend on ourselves?

“Anything else is stupid” ignores that there are multiple strategic priorities in play besides simply “hurt China.” The US also has to consider global energy stability, allied economies, freedom of navigation, credibility with trading partners, avoiding direct regional escalation, and maintaining the broader maritime network that underpins global commerce in the first place.

:cheers:

quote:

---

I'm pro 2nd amendment baw, just folks in here screaming about it like OP thinks the law should get involved. All the dude did was voice an opinion.

---

But what does this have to do with the 2nd?