Potentially the longest thread in history...

[carnageX]

Awesome! congrats.

If I was going to give advice i'd say try and find a bike with ABS if you can. Braking without ABS is fine normally, the problem comes when you have to brake in an emergency. Can you hold your composure and progressively but firmly squeeze the brake ? most riders can't, because you just panic. You just grab the brakes as hard as possible, if you do that on a bike without ABS you will lock up the wheels and might low side the bike, which is bad. But obviously bikes without ABS have been around for decades and people were fine. But personally I wouldn't do it if I could afford it. But if ABS bikes were out of my budget, i'd still get a non ABS one rather than none at all lol.

I believe the FZ6 doesn't have ABS from what I've read.

Also, the FZ6 is a 600cc engine off a Yamaha R6 sports bike. 600cc engines are great fun, but they're really peaky. Below 6000 RPM they're pretty docile and predictable, above 6000 they're like a slingshot and they'll fling you down the roads at stupid speeds.

Yeah, seems like that's what it looked like in some of the video reviews / rides I've watched on it.

The Fj6 is 30hp detuned off a typical 600cc sports bike engine, so it shouldn't be quite as bad as a typical 600cc sports bike, but I would still be careful. They're just not very predictable as an engine, e.g. you could accidentally downshift too far and drop it nicely into the 8k rpm power band and have way more power than you were expecting. Make no mistake, 90hp in a 180kg bike is going to get you to 60mph in under 4 seconds with good shifting. They're no joke. Be careful and you will be fine, though.

I don't expect to go out of town really on it much or do much for highway driving really even. Just in town, zipping around at least for now until I get more comfortable on a bike.

Reason I'm looking at the FZ6 is b/c I found a good deal locally it looks like; $2k for it - but I haven't contacted the guy yet to see if he still has it, or other details (like mileage). Otherwise I'll just keep looking over the course of the winter to see what deals pop up. Not in that huge of a hurry to get a bike; but getting one while the prices are low would be nice.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

I eat like this daily.

If you ask people how much they eat on average in a week, then track their actual eating for the full week, they're nearly always very wrong on one side or the other. You've tracked one day of eating and equated it to your average, which is dubious tbh. Could easily turn out your average per day is actually 2800-3000.

I used to eat 2 full pizzas for lunch every tuesday, which is over 4000 calories just by itself. But I also never ate breakfast, didn't eat much for the rest of that tuesday, etcetcetc. At the end of the week if I added it up I'd be on the high side, but not by as much as a single tuesday would suggest.

They're just numbers, a guideline to go by but not concrete.

Yeah of course they are - they're based on the *average* man/woman's energy requirements. It's not like that's a secret

If you wanted, you could pay a professional nutritionist to tell you exactly what you should be eating, but not many people can afford that. People like Dwayne Johnson or Michael Phelps can however, and the results speak for themselves. The total amount that these guys eat is 100% based off the caloric intake they require. The science behind energy use and energy intake is pretty damn clear, and I can't quite tell whether your position is "it's useless" or "it's useless to work off an averaged figure". It seeeeems to be the latter? In which case yeah I'd agree to an extent.

 

[iParanormalx]

My youtube put this in my "play next" list and i watched/listened to the whole thing and I thoroughly enjoyed it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfIBEJYZG7o

 

[PP Mguire]

If you ask people how much they eat on average in a week, then track their actual eating for the full week, they're nearly always very wrong on one side or the other. You've tracked one day of eating and equated it to your average, which is dubious tbh. Could easily turn out your average per day is actually 2800-3000.

I used to eat 2 full pizzas for lunch every tuesday, which is over 4000 calories just by itself. But I also never ate breakfast, didn't eat much for the rest of that tuesday, etcetcetc. At the end of the week if I added it up I'd be on the high side, but not by as much as a single tuesday would suggest.



Yeah of course they are - they're based on the *average* man/woman's energy requirements. It's not like that's a secret

If you wanted, you could pay a professional nutritionist to tell you exactly what you should be eating, but not many people can afford that. People like Dwayne Johnson or Michael Phelps can however, and the results speak for themselves. The total amount that these guys eat is 100% based off the caloric intake they require. The science behind energy use and energy intake is pretty damn clear, and I can't quite tell whether your position is "it's useless" or "it's useless to work off an averaged figure". It seeeeems to be the latter? In which case yeah I'd agree to an extent.

Ah I see we have another missing the point of what I'm saying, clearly missed the comparison to processors (which is ok).....later though. First:

If you ask people how much they eat on average in a week, then track their actual eating for the full week, they're nearly always very wrong on one side or the other. You've tracked one day of eating and equated it to your average, which is dubious tbh. Could easily turn out your average per day is actually 2800-3000.

I used to eat 2 full pizzas for lunch every tuesday, which is over 4000 calories just by itself. But I also never ate breakfast, didn't eat much for the rest of that tuesday, etcetcetc. At the end of the week if I added it up I'd be on the high side, but not by as much as a single tuesday would suggest.

You just basically admitted to eating a daily "average" for 2 days in one day which would eventually burn off and balance out. My daily average is close to the same each day, each week. The only extraneous content would be the beer, because I don't drink 4 beers every night. For instance, I could bring home a 6 pack of Blue Moon which is my go to, that's 171 calories per bottle and I'll finish the 6 pack before bed (quite a bit higher than the 4 Bud Lights). I could have a glass of Crown and Coke which could have a different calorie balance each glass depending on my mood. The rest is pretty constant. I go to the gas station before work each day and buy 2 bottles of Dr Pepper and 2 packs of crackers. That's 5 days out of the week. When I'm at home my calorie intake is probably even more because I have usually 2 cups of coffee with Dunkin Donuts extra extra creamer which is 40 calories per tablespoon and I pour for ehhh about 3 seconds. That's about 120 calories on top of the coffee itself, and through the day I'll have a mixture of beer and soda. Back to my previous post, I have that meal every single weekend. I walk into Fire House subs, they know exactly what I want and have it up when I get to the counter. Raising Cane's is a weekend trip with a coworker we do without fail as well because the 2 girls behind the counter have seriously NICE asses. Actually this week I'd be willing to bet my intake was actually higher because Friday I went to Waffle House and got a Texas Cheesesteak Melt plate with bacon and a double hashbrown capped and covered (cheese and slicked up shrooms).
The only reason I even brought up my personal calorie intake (and tbh I've never properly added it up until now) is because Kman was trying to say if I really did eat like that I'd be a lard ***, which clearly I'm not. I've been a size 30-32 since I was a teen and need to wear a belt. Quite literally all I've been saying about calories is it's a number, it may be a scientific average but the health AND medical field has proven continuously that every body is different. Basically saying, sticking to a strict 2500 average is dumb because you need to cater your intake and average to your body. If you're not losing weight (or gaining) based on a 2500 calorie average then you need to switch up your diet or calorie value.

If you wanted, you could pay a professional nutritionist to tell you exactly what you should be eating, but not many people can afford that. People like Dwayne Johnson or Michael Phelps can however, and the results speak for themselves. The total amount that these guys eat is 100% based off the caloric intake they require. The science behind energy use and energy intake is pretty damn clear, and I can't quite tell whether your position is "it's useless" or "it's useless to work off an averaged figure". It seeeeems to be the latter? In which case yeah I'd agree to an extent.

That's the thing, when I was a teenager bulking I did actually have a professional trainer, it's how I know so much about health and fitness in the first place. That quite literally is why I'm sitting here wasting Overwatch playing time typing this is from personal experience. I was trying to bulk with a strict 2500 Protein and Whey diet and it wasn't working. We raised it to 3000 and with my workout habits STILL not working (this was including massive steak dinners, creatine mixes, multiple eggs without butter, etc). I made the dude who had muscles like The Rock scratch his head because even though I did put on a little bit of muscle mass (basically only filled in and had a showing 6 pack) I wasn't growing even though I was practically on a body builder diet. Guys like The Rock and Phelps have 2 completely different diets based on their body demands. The Rock consumes way more than you and I would be able to and then some because of his ridiculous workout regime. There's no way I'd be able to woof down a 6 stack of pancakes, workout for a few hours at his level, then consume 6 raw eggs without puking it all back up. Phelps would not benefit from a dietary plan like that because the mass would actually slow him down, but I can guarantee with his workout habits he would still be consuming more daily average than us. Guys like those have a much higher intake and stricter dietary plan catering to their needs than us because otherwise they'd lose after each training session.

This is precisely why I compared it to processor speed as something we can all relate to. An AMD FX at 4.5GHz isn't going to perform the same as an i7 7700k, why? Because they're both different. There is scientific fact between relative speed to IPC just like daily calorie average. Does one make the same as the other? No. You can't directly compare it, and there's tons of data all over the net, books, videos, etc over it. Same can be said for daily calorie average. 2500 is based on a typical lifestyle for your typical adult that is not as active and consumes fairly healthy materials. In theory sticking to that dataset and regime they should not lose or gain and theoretically continue to live a healthy life. Then you have me over here that averages higher than that on a constant basis with unhealthy things (mainly all the Dr Pepper and beer I drink) but I can walk into the doctor, weigh in about the same I've been, and come out of my checkup clean as a whistle. Does that make me weird? Yup, but just means that the recommended average isn't for everybody therefor it's a number that shouldn't be followed religiously like some people do. It's merely a guideline, but people who have the same sentiments as you two will start having issues when they want to lose/gain or "be healthy" and can't understand why it's not working. THen they'll go out and find a health and fitness professional that will tell them the exact same thing I'm saying now. You have to adjust based on your own life and body, not stick to that number. Just like processors, you can't base the speed on the number. You need to do research and figure out what's best for you. Clearly I have a higher metabolism and higher tolerance to junk but when that starts to screw me up I'll have to adjust my eating and types of food I eat. Considering I'll be 30 next year that's probably sooner rather than later but don't remind me.

As an aside, this conversation is making me realize just how bad I really do treat my body. Probably time to fix that. New teeth can't come any faster because that'll mark out probably 800-1000 calories a day AND ditch the massive amounts of sugars/corn syrup. And yes I do need an excuse because dropping drinking Dr Pepper has been one of the only things in my life that's been hard to quit. Nicotine, gaming, caffeine, speeding (yea, driving fast) have all been things I could stop on a dime for a while without hesitation (even all other sodas). Dr Pepper though, that's my nectar of the gods. So delicious.

 

[kmanmx]

I've owned a little Honda 80cc bike, YZ-125, YZ-250, WR-250, WR-400, XR-600, and an XR-650. Yes. I rode for nearly 15 years. I raced (YZ-125 and YZ-250). I broke bones, skinned myself up, then I quit.

Ehhhhhhhh, okay you have 15 years riding experience, but a 600cc enduro that puts out 40hp isn't *quite* the same thing as the engine from a 600cc sportsbike that put out 3x that

I believe the FZ6 doesn't have ABS from what I've read.


Yeah, seems like that's what it looked like in some of the video reviews / rides I've watched on it.


I don't expect to go out of town really on it much or do much for highway driving really even. Just in town, zipping around at least for now until I get more comfortable on a bike.

Reason I'm looking at the FZ6 is b/c I found a good deal locally it looks like; $2k for it - but I haven't contacted the guy yet to see if he still has it, or other details (like mileage). Otherwise I'll just keep looking over the course of the winter to see what deals pop up. Not in that huge of a hurry to get a bike; but getting one while the prices are low would be nice.

You'll gain confidence pretty quickly so I doubt you'll stick purely to riding around the city or town for long does your state allow filtering ? it's really fun if they do. Feels great to ride straight past a mile of cars in traffic

I say go check out the 600cc FZ6 if it's only $2k. Old Jap bikes tend to be really reliable, so it's a pretty good idea. It is quite powerful for a first bike, but at least this way you won't outgrow it in 6 months.

__________________________________________________________________________


In other news i'm pretty sure i'm going to get sacked or made redundant soon. I am having serious motivational problems in terms of actually doing work. I just can't. I have lost all drive and willpower. Not sure why. Just everything about being at work, even when I am making coffee I do it in the slowest, weakest most pathetic way possible. Then I get to my PC, go to edit or update some of my JS code, and i'll literally type a couple of words and then just stop typing and sit their blank. Pretty sure my boss knows too, because it's taking me days to do things that should take an hour or two.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

My daily average is close to the same each day, each week.

Urrrgh, this is why I didn't bother replying at first I knew this was coming.

I don't think we disagree at all about whether you can blindly pick a number and stick to it and expect to be "healthy" as a result. And I don't recall ever saying that either
You DO have to adjust based on your own life and body, which is why I said getting a personalized diet would be the best idea if you had the time/money/inclination. Totally agree with you.

The reason behind WHY you need that particular input will always boil down to the simple fact that you have a biological body that runs off chemical input; whatever your body type may be, that input can be calculated based off measuring how much you burn; the calculations made will use calorie intake.

As far as the intake goes, you can wing it and adjust based solely on the change you see. There's nothing wrong with that.
You can also pick a calorie intake number and adjust based on the change you see off that. Nothing wrong with that either, and you get an easy number to work with as a bonus.

And no I didn't miss the Ghz comparison, I just didn't comment on it because I didn't think it was a very good analogy a 1Ghz Atom is orders of magnitude less powerful than a 1Ghz Xeon. It's not even remotely in the same ballpark, and suggests that calorie intake could vary from 100 to 100,000 depending on your body type. The spread in reality is MUCH closer than that. At the *extreme* ends, we've got mb 1200 calories vs 11,000. 99% of the population will fall between 1800-3000. Pointing at how extremes don't fit in that range is just cherry picking.

If I had to pick a comparison I'd maybe say MPG ratings - cars with V6 engines burn through more fuel than a 1.3L 4 cylinder. At the end of the day we can make a useful generalization and say "hey, if you've got a car with X cylinders and X capacity, you'll probably average around X mpg, so I'd estimate you should buy this much fuel per day. Adjust as needed".

 

[kmanmx]

Just to throw a curveball, they (Harvard) did a study on the calories claimed to be in a number of common food items, and then had them accurately tested. The food labels were often out by a massive amount in some cases.

Whenever I diet I limit myself to about 1500 cals a day. I count every calorie. I always lose 4 to 8lbs a week, works for me.

 

[carnageX]

You'll gain confidence pretty quickly so I doubt you'll stick purely to riding around the city or town for long does your state allow filtering ? it's really fun if they do. Feels great to ride straight past a mile of cars in traffic

Oh I'm sure I'll gain confidence quickly, but we'll see. There's only a pretty short window when I can actually ride for the most part.

And no, SD doesn't allow filtering.

I say go check out the 600cc FZ6 if it's only $2k. Old Jap bikes tend to be really reliable, so it's a pretty good idea. It is quite powerful for a first bike, but at least this way you won't outgrow it in 6 months.

Yeah that's kinda why I'm leaning that way, so I don't have to go around and get a new bike next riding season if/when I realize I'm "bored" with this one now.

__________________________________________________________________________


In other news i'm pretty sure i'm going to get sacked or made redundant soon. I am having serious motivational problems in terms of actually doing work. I just can't. I have lost all drive and willpower. Not sure why. Just everything about being at work, even when I am making coffee I do it in the slowest, weakest most pathetic way possible. Then I get to my PC, go to edit or update some of my JS code, and i'll literally type a couple of words and then just stop typing and sit their blank. Pretty sure my boss knows too, because it's taking me days to do things that should take an hour or two.

That's how I've been for the past month with everything going on...but IMO a good manager/boss will notice you've changed, and take you aside and talk to you about stuff & understand what's going on. That's how it was with my boss - I work with a lot of different people everyday, and I was at the point where I was giving really short direct answers to their questions in a "gtfo of here" tone of voice. Manager / people on my team noticed I wasn't my usual self and they wanted to know what was going on. That said, I have a pretty good relationship with most of my team members, so I was open to letting them know what was going on with me.

 

[PP Mguire]

Urrrgh, this is why I didn't bother replying at first I knew this was coming.

I don't think we disagree at all about whether you can blindly pick a number and stick to it and expect to be "healthy" as a result. And I don't recall ever saying that either
You DO have to adjust based on your own life and body, which is why I said getting a personalized diet would be the best idea if you had the time/money/inclination. Totally agree with you.

The reason behind WHY you need that particular input will always boil down to the simple fact that you have a biological body that runs off chemical input; whatever your body type may be, that input can be calculated based off measuring how much you burn; the calculations made will use calorie intake. Missing the fact that some foods like certain alcohols are retained in your body for a longer period of time, and the fact that a lot of people eat before bed which gives the opportunity to retain calorie intake rather than gradually burn off through the day naturally. It further strengthens my point. Energy consumed and not wasted is turned into fat making any calorie watching moot, making it just a number. Snacking before bed is hugely linked to obesity and why I don't gain, I almost never eat before bed. My GF gains weight super fast because she does this so much and I've watched the cycle several times in other friends.

As far as the intake goes, you can wing it and adjust based solely on the change you see. There's nothing wrong with that.
You can also pick a calorie intake number and adjust based on the change you see off that. Nothing wrong with that either, and you get an easy number to work with as a bonus.

And no I didn't miss the Ghz comparison, I just didn't comment on it because I didn't think it was a very good analogy a 1Ghz Atom is orders of magnitude less powerful than a 1Ghz Xeon. It's not even remotely in the same ballpark, and suggests that calorie intake could vary from 100 to 100,000 depending on your body type. The spread in reality is MUCH closer than that. At the *extreme* ends, we've got mb 1200 calories vs 11,000. 99% of the population will fall between 1800-3000. Pointing at how extremes don't fit in that range is just cherry picking.

If I had to pick a comparison I'd maybe say MPG ratings - cars with V6 engines burn through more fuel than a 1.3L 4 cylinder. At the end of the day we can make a useful generalization and say "hey, if you've got a car with X cylinders and X capacity, you'll probably average around X mpg, so I'd estimate you should buy this much fuel per day. Adjust as needed".

You say that's why you didn't reply, you don't understand that I eat and drink practically the same stuff every week almost in an orderly fashion. My gf and I only know how to cook a few things so we don't really change it up much and I work on the weekends so I eat the same foods each day, go to the gas station before work and buy the same things, etc. Before I moved into my new house I literally had Taco Casa (2 super burritos, one bean burrito mild, large sweet tea) every single Sunday for 2.5 years. Once I get into a daily groove it's hard for me to change it, that includes food.

Just to throw a curveball, they (Harvard) did a study on the calories claimed to be in a number of common food items, and then had them accurately tested. The food labels were often out by a massive amount in some cases.

Whenever I diet I limit myself to about 1500 cals a day. I count every calorie. I always lose 4 to 8lbs a week, works for me.

This above is all I need to say.

@Soul - The comparison to processors is spot on, you didn't get the comparison right. You're missing the fact that I'm saying people stick to the number religiously because they don't understand what we are saying much like people basing processors based off core count and speed. They don't understand the difference in speed, much like most wanting to lose weight don't understand that you need to adjust the number based on your body type and diet. I'm taking the psychological approach of your typical person who knows nothing of what we speak of (which face it is practically everybody) in the fact that "based on an average of a 2500 calorie diet" is written everywhere will be burned in. They will stick to this number and get discouraged because they can't figure out where they went wrong, THEN add what Kman just said. The fact that most calorie figures are what I like to say usually made up on the spot or "guesstimated" (because who really is going to get official on it) make it all a crock of **** really. So you got people going into the PC world blindly with no education on the matter they will see an FX 8350 at 4.0GHz with 8 cores for 100 bucks vs say an i5 7600k for over 200 and be like oh that FX must be so much better! Person going blindly into health, might bring up Google and see "average of 2500 daily" and be like ok I need to start counting my intake and watch what I eat. Much like that person buying the FX the calorie watcher is in for a grave disappointment. In the end both of those numbers are there for a reason and are factual for a specific reason BUT to the individual it's just a number. They don't understand why it's there. It's why I detest the calorie figure much like why I practically ignore GHz in terms of speed unless we're comparing apples to apples (same architecture, node, family, etc).


Bleh so tired of that conversation already onto mo betta topic! My Nvidia Shield came in yesterday and I have to say I am really ****ing happy with this piece of gear. I basically only bought it because I was so sick and tired of depending on consoles or the TV for Plex streaming. The Shield absolutely blows everything out of the water. It's so damn fast and responsive, almost like emulating Android on my PC at the TV. Very well worth the cost in my application because when it comes to electronics I'm a very impatient person and I absolutely HATE buffering in a movie.

 

[PP Mguire]

Double post, my new reciever just came in AND my new humidifier. Much excite.