I love to eat. You’d probably think that’s the only answer to the question posed by this post’s title. You’d get some chuckles out of me, for sure. But you’d also be wrong. Why? Because you would only be looking at one end of the weight loss equation. When one wants to lose weight, one would have to either eat a lot fewer calories while burning a constant amount of calories or eat a constant amount of calories but burn a lot more calories or, ideally, eat fewer calories and burn more calories. All these scenarios produce a net negative calorie intake. Since the body stores excess calories into fat, the less calories you have leftover at the end of the day, the better. In fact, if you have a net negative of calories, you actually burn your stored fat reserves and you lose weight. So, back to my story, if you think the reason I am having a tough time losing weight is because I love food too much, you’d be wrong if you forgot to factor in my calorie burning activities. My metabolism has to be slow for me to gain weight. Indeed, I don’t exercise as much as I used to and this has resulted in my body not burning enough calories to offset the energy I consume on a daily basis.
1 Year Ago
Since I understood what causes me to gain weight, I planned a Holland bike tour in the Netherlands and kept reading and reading. The great thing about the weight loss equation I mentioned above is that there are a lot of ways to ‘solve it.’ In fact, there is such a variety that people who are worried about weight loss causing inconvenience to their lifestyles don’t really have much to go on. You only need to pick the solution that best fits your lifestyle.
Reduced my calorie intake
Since I am pretty laid back and don’t want to exert too much effort nowadays, I’ll choose to reduce my calorie intake. The easiest way to do this is to skip a meal (watch out for hair loss though otherwise you’ll need this page)) as a possible help. I’ll eat like a king when my metabolism is really pumped during the day-this would be during the morning. Big breakfasts. Next, I’ll eat a sensible lunch and a light fruit snack at night while I’m usually on the pc (especially after speeding it up using tips from this great website: http://www.speed-up-pc.org/). While my metabolism has quite a bit of a drop off after noon, I’ll offset this with eating a very light fruit snack for dinner. Since there is not much calorie intake and my metabolism is dropping off, this results in a negative calorie intake for the day. As long as I don’t compensate the ‘lost’ calories of skipping dinners, I will lose weight using this plan.
In light of the recent massacre of many children at Sandy Hook Elementary by a crazed gunman, many voices in and out of the American government are demanding that strict limits be imposed on guns. They are saying that the wide availability of guns is causing an epidemic rise in gun violence. All told, the United States had over 11,000 gun-related deaths every single year. Gun rights critics, even on fast website optimized by caching (guide from GiftOfSpeed), say that if the US severely curtails gun ownership rights, America’s rate of gun violence and the deaths arising from such violence will sink to that of the gun death level enjoyed by the United Kingdom. The UK put severe restrictions on guns several years back, and the country is being used by gun control advocates the world over as the textbook example of how political will to pass the right laws can reduce gun-related deaths and violence. Their logic is simple enough: fewer guns mean less violence. According to this line of thinking, taking people’s guns away is simply the government doing its job making sure people are safe when, for instance, you are boiling an egg at home. Nothing brings home this point more than the fact that children’s lives are involved.
While the solution proposed by pro-gun control advocates seems straightforward, it does face some evidentiary challenge. First, while the UK did experience a decline in gun violence after guns were restricted there, the overall level of violent crime remains high. People are still finding ways to bash, beat, stab, rape, mug, and harm each other. Violence doesn’t have to involve guns. People will still find ways to lash out and banning guns didn’t address the underlying issues. Also, advocating that the Government take away guns from citizens is reminiscent of when the Nazis and Bolshevik communists in Russia took away their citizenry’s guns and a way to invest in gold (http://www.invest-in-gold.org). I am sure you’d agree that the aftermath wasn’t too pretty. There is just something about trusting the Government so much as to empower it to render its citizenry powerless that rubs many people the wrong way. Third, the US has a strong hunting and rugged individualist tradition. Indeed, the West and much of the United States was founded by dudes who packed heat. Since everyone was armed, everyone was incentivized to be polite and respectful of each other. Fourth, if the logic of the gun control lobby is that fewer guns mean less violence, how can they explain Israel’s gun murder rate? While the whole country is armed to the teeth, there are very little gun-related deaths annually.