WWTBAM Bored

So, here's a new "before" photo.

I know I look like crap.

Does this mean that there is going to be an 'after' picture?

You actually look younger to me than the last photo I saw.

Maybe we need a before "before" picture to compare. You don't look all that bad to me. I struggle daily maintaining my weight where I want it and I know it's not easy.

Good luck!

peacock2121 wrote:Does this mean that there is going to be an 'after' picture?

You actually look younger to me than the last photo I saw.

There will be an "After" photo some time in the future.

I will probably give progress pics along the way, as well.

kayrharris wrote:Maybe we need a before "before" picture to compare. You don't look all that bad to me. I struggle daily maintaining my weight where I want it and I know it's not easy.

Good luck!

Here's one from when I was twenty pound slighter than I am right now:

You do look younger to me in the most recent photo.

Maybe 'less stressed', not really younger.

Muffin top.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Muffin top.

I don't get it.

Muffin top is a roll of fat that hangs over the top of the waist band (or the hip band) of a pair of pants. The name became popular when the jeans started going lower on the hips and even 'not fat' girls had some fat deposited there and got their jeans maybe just a bit too small in the waist and the roll just fell over - like a muffin top.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Muffin top.

See what I mean......now you're being mean to Cal.

I think for me, it's more of Dunlop's Syndrome.

Even when I got down to 183 before I started law school, I had a little gut.

[quote="TheCalvinator24"]I think for me, it's more of Dunlop's Syndrome.


You could always get some high risers.

DevilKitty100 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:Muffin top.

See what I mean......now you're being mean to Cal.

It must be the times in which we live, DK. I am so pissed off right now about the direction our country is going that it just spills over (kinda like Cal's gut) into my everyday thoughts. And, the very real possibility that the US may be going totally Socialist if Madame Clinton gets into the White House just burns my britches. I would consider moving to Canada with Lady G if that happened but it's no better up there (with all due respect to our Canadian buddies).

Sir_Galahad wrote:And, the very real possibility that the US may be going totally Socialist if Madame Clinton gets into the White House just burns my britches.

*SNORT!!!*

Get real, Sirge. You've got to turn that radio off once in a while.

I've got a semi-Socialist sister, and even I don't think that way. You're being scared to death by people trying to control the way you think and vote. Ain't gonna happen.

minimetoo26 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:And, the very real possibility that the US may be going totally Socialist if Madame Clinton gets into the White House just burns my britches.

*SNORT!!!*

Get real, Sirge. You've got to turn that radio off once in a while.

I've got a semi-Socialist sister, and even I don't think that way. You're being scared to death by people trying to control the way you think and vote. Ain't gonna happen.

Mini, it's not what I hear on the radio that worries me; it's what I hear coming out of Madame Hillary's own mouth. Let's see; Hillary-care, open borders, liberal judges, The Robbin Hood tax syndrome, expanded government and on and on. You don't have to listen to the radio to see the direction this country will go if she gets in. If I'm making this up, please tell me so.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

minimetoo26 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:And, the very real possibility that the US may be going totally Socialist if Madame Clinton gets into the White House just burns my britches.

*SNORT!!!*

Get real, Sirge. You've got to turn that radio off once in a while.

I've got a semi-Socialist sister, and even I don't think that way. You're being scared to death by people trying to control the way you think and vote. Ain't gonna happen.

Mini, it's not what I hear on the radio that worries me; it's what I hear coming out of Madame Hillary's own mouth. Let's see; Hillary-care, open borders, liberal judges, The Robbin Hood tax syndrome, expanded government and on and on. You don't have to listen to the radio to see the direction this country will go if she gets in. If I'm making this up, please tell me so.

The government got so huge and bloated under Dear George, despite the talktalktalk crowd bragging about Limited Government. New cabinet posts and departments were created under him, remember? Homeland Security? And tax-and-spend sure beats borrow-until-you-are-in-a-huge-hole-and-just-keep-on-a-spendin'. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they actually get to do it, too. That's the whole checks and balances deal. Unless you got yourself a Cheney who gets you around them with Recess Appointments and the like.

There just isn't much difference between the candidates and the parties as you are scared into thinking.

My political science teacher told us in 1993 that you could put anyone from the most liberal communist to the most conservative Nazi in the White House, and it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference because of the way our government system is set up...

He also told us in that class that a nuclear bomb would go off in some major city sometime in the next 15 years. He's got 1 year left on that prediction, but he should get partial credit for 9/11....

Yes the guy was nuts, but that class was a riot....

lb13

minimetoo26 wrote: The government got so huge and bloated under Dear George, despite the talktalktalk crowd bragging about Limited Government. New cabinet posts and departments were created under him, remember? Homeland Security? And tax-and-spend sure beats borrow-until-you-are-in-a-huge-hole-and-just-keep-on-a-spendin'. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they actually get to do it, too. That's the whole checks and balances deal. Unless you got yourself a Cheney who gets you around them with Recess Appointments and the like.

There just isn't much difference between the candidates and the parties as you are scared into thinking.

I did not vote for George, either. And, yes, I know about the bloating of gov't under GWB. I'm sure there would have been another way to do the Homeland Security thing without creating a whole new government agency / department. And, I agree with your other points as well. My point is that, if you think that <b>this</b> is bad, things will get much worse if Hillary is elected. That's my feeling. My feeling is that government will intrude into your life as never before. What this country <b>really</b> needs is a solid third-party conservative, smaller government candidate whom we (I) can feel comfortable voting for. The more I hear from Rudy and Romney, the more I feel this way. But I <b>know</b> I don't want Hillary in the W.H.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

minimetoo26 wrote: The government got so huge and bloated under Dear George, despite the talktalktalk crowd bragging about Limited Government. New cabinet posts and departments were created under him, remember? Homeland Security? And tax-and-spend sure beats borrow-until-you-are-in-a-huge-hole-and-just-keep-on-a-spendin'. Just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they actually get to do it, too. That's the whole checks and balances deal. Unless you got yourself a Cheney who gets you around them with Recess Appointments and the like.

There just isn't much difference between the candidates and the parties as you are scared into thinking.

I did not vote for George, either. And, yes, I know about the bloating of gov't under GWB. I'm sure there would have been another way to do the Homeland Security thing without creating a whole new government agency / department. And, I agree with your other points as well. My point is that, if you think that <b>this</b> is bad, things will get much worse if Hillary is elected. That's my feeling. My feeling is that government will intrude into your life as never before. What this country <b>really</b> needs is a solid third-party conservative, smaller government candidate whom we (I) can feel comfortable voting for. The more I hear from Rudy and Romney, the more I feel this way. But I <b>know</b> I don't want Hillary in the W.H.

Fine. But learn to separate rhetoric and hype from reality. You'll feel much better.

Put some Jason Mraz on your Ipod. I won't worry my life away....

minimetoo26 wrote:
Fine. But learn to separate rhetoric and hype from reality. You'll feel much better.

Put some Jason Mraz on your Ipod. I won't worry my life away....

I do not pay attention to the hype. I pay attention to what the candidates say. Not to the spin that is put on what they say.

Never heard of Mraz. For relaxation I listen to Enigma, Enya and the like.

Sir_Galahad wrote: Never heard of Mraz. For relaxation I listen to Enigma, Enya and the like.

You would know The Remedy if you heard it. It was inescapable a few years back. And fun!

Mraz is a Virginia boy, so I'm partial...

I've always had kind of a knack for looking at pictures of people when they're kids or in high school or whatever and being able to tell who they are -- stuff like that. Also much better than average at noticing changes in hairstyles and whatnot -- any physical changes.

I gotta admit, though, that I've never seen a picture of Cal where I would have recognized him from any other picture I've seen. Not that I've seen all that many, but still. The two posted in this thread look more like the same person than any other two of him than I can think of.

I'm stumped as to why that is. The only other example that I can think of where somebody's pictures seem so unrecognizable to me are ones of Eric Clapton through the years -- (as evidenced, for example, by pictures on the album cover of his greatest hits -- the one put out decades ago).

By the way, Cal. I don't think you look terrible at all. Sure, you could stand to lose a few, but you look pretty young to me.

minimetoo26 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote: Never heard of Mraz. For relaxation I listen to Enigma, Enya and the like.

You would know The Remedy if you heard it. It was inescapable a few years back. And fun!

Mraz is a Virginia boy, so I'm partial...

We were actually in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago. I had some business in Williamsburg and then we took a day to sightsee in Jamestown. We'll probably go back next year in the spring to visit colonial Williamsburg.

Interesting thread. Starts off one way, veers wildly some place else.

The good news is that just by looking at the picture, you have some measure of muscle, and that those muscles want to do stuff.

The bad news is that for those of us who are muscled up, to get rid of extra fluff, we have to be more aware of our dietary choices because just working on the muscle part will just put on bigger muscles along with the fluff.

Usually, for most everyone, increasing our exercise and taking out the five most nutritionally void/ungood things that we eat/drink the most can make a huge difference.

Do you think that's a fair summary?

Bixby17 wrote:Interesting thread. Starts off one way, veers wildly some place else.

The good news is that just by looking at the picture, you have some measure of muscle, and that those muscles want to do stuff.

The bad news is that for those of us who are muscled up, to get rid of extra fluff, we have to be more aware of our dietary choices because just working on the muscle part will just put on bigger muscles along with the fluff.

Usually, for most everyone, increasing our exercise and taking out the five most nutritionally void/ungood things that we eat/drink the most can make a huge difference.

Do you think that's a fair summary?

I'm not sure what my five bad foods & drinks are. I'm not saying I don't have them. I'm just not sure what they would be.

I don't do much muscle-training because I am too cheap to pay for a gym membership, and I don't have any home equipment. I have gotten back on the Gazelle twice this week. Can't tonight because I gave blood today. Tomorrow night, I have a brush-up rehearsal, but I plan to exercise when I get home.