I think this might be based off of some older information about how much a lb of muscle burns a day. I’ve heard numbers like 30 kcal a day per lb. I believe that is outdated info.
From Renaissance Perioridazation.
They claim 6 kcal per day per lb. I watched a YouTube video recently that did a whole breakdown on the topic. The takeaway is it isn’t exactly 6 kcal, but a range depending mostly on how active you are. The range was from like 3 kcal to 9 kcal or something like that. A lb of fat will cost you about 2 kcal per day per lb.
Now, if you use steroids to build a whole 20 lbs of lean tissue, we are talking about 180 kcal a day in a good scenario where one is pretty active. But if one loses a bunch of fat on the sauce, they are also lowering their metabolic rate by ~2kcal per lb per day.
It took me a long time to be comfortable in my own skin even though outwardly you could not tell it.
I used playing ball and lifting weights as a place to funnel all my anger and pain for a very long time as a way of not having to deal with it. On the other side I am probably still here largely because of the gym and having a somewhat constructive outlet.
It may be cliche, but children have changed everything for me. They have given me true purpose in this life and something to devote myself to that is bigger and beyond me.
After burying a pregnant fiancé at 24 years old, my sympathy for people is much different. I am not so quick to judge anyone and try to be kind (I am not always great at this still) to everyone. At the very least, I can see how people through circumstances and tragic events in life can fall into ruts or addictions. Mine just happened to be the gym.
Ditto. That and more empathy came with age from further life experiences. I’m still no saint / philanthropist but age has definitely made me a better person.
A surprising percentage. Neither the helicopter ride nor the emergency team on staff were in network that day, even though the hospital staff was. It was an interesting and expensive lesson in hospital operations.
Regarding the relatively incidental amounts insurance did pick up, please logically tie a not at fault accident to intentional poor health choices without using logical leaps, fallacies or being otherwise intentionally daft in your analysis.
I have a food blog, make entire meals for my family and have dined at some of the most expensive restaurants in the world.
90% of my daily meals consist of broiled chicken breast, unseasoned boiled eggs or microwaved egg whites paired with untoasted bread and salad mix dressed with mustard
Regardless of fault, riding a motorcycle is putting yourself at risk for death or injury that often gets paid for by insurance. You can look all this up. Motorcycles are far more risky (~20X more likely to kill you than a typical automobile) than basically every other mode of transportation (aside from things like small private air planes).
My point in this, is that many people like to pick and choose what is okay and what isn’t. Smokers, fat people, and drug users are some of the typical targets of the “that should not be covered by insurance” trope. While others that are taking unnecessary risks get a pass. It isn’t a stretch to say that some activities like motorcycle riding are costing those paying into health insurance pool. I know at least 5 people who have been hospitalized due to motorcycles. I have been hospitalized due to risky behavior myself (big mountain snowboarding). I also drive an almost 300 hp small hatchback which is probably not the safest thing on the road.
I am just pointing out that we (as most people) pick and choose what we deem to be unacceptable, without much thought of other things that are equally risky. We lack consistent thinking on the matter.
If you don’t see a difference between an accident and self-infliction I’m sure this entire post is confounding to you.
Lets try a few examples though:
Heavy weight training = risky. Recent viral video of a snapped neck even vs. Russian roulette
Trail running is risky with reports of people going over ledges or being attacked by animals vs. meth use
Mountain biking is risky, self cutting is risky.
Driving a car to work - risky. Suicide is risky.
All of these are same/same to you?
You’re trying to reframe the conversation to weighted general risk, but the context is in another lane. I asked you not to make logical leaps.
To be even more technical, would you agree private insurance involves willful participation? It does. Go back and read in full context instead of snipping until you can force an out of context point and try again.
The context is about people taking risks and if others should have to share the burden in health costs, right? That is what my first comment to you was about.
In this exchange, you are the one trying to shift the conversation to what you deem to be an acceptable risk and what isn’t.
We both agree (at least I think, because the data makes it obvious) that certain activities are costly to the people paying for insurance. You are now saying that certain activities are acceptable and some aren’t (regarding being covered medically). Why are those acceptable to you vs the ones that are not?
Please tie a not-at-fault accident to willfully damaging behavior and do it in the broader context of the original post. Without logical leaps, shifting context or convenient snipping to force a non point.
You are the one asserting that certain known risky behaviors that result in injury should be looked at differently (and covered by insurance) compared to “willfully damaging behavior” that results in injury / disease (and should not covered by insurance).
I don’t owe you the proof you are wrong. You owe me the proof you are right. Burden of proof and all that fun stuff.
