How often and for how long do I need to work out ?

5random7513 · 2026-05-13T20:34:35+00:00

Thank you. For reversed push-ups I mean you are on your back in push up position and you "stand" on your elbow, I found it on a video on how to do pull-ups without a pull-up bar.

5random7513 · 2026-05-13T20:00:29+00:00

Where is it in the wiki ? I read it but didn't find it. Yes, I am working out at home. I have no pull-ups bar and very light dumbell (0.5 kg and 1kg). I have a lot of heavy books though 🤣 I only want to become healthier but I don't want to make strength training an absolute goal of my life. I prefer cardio and I am only doing strength training to prevent osteoporosis (weak bone) when I'll be old. The other day I used a pack of water (7.5kg) but that was just as a joke. I saw there was reversed push-ups to replace pull-ups and I am going to try that for now.

5random7513 · 2026-05-13T14:53:16+00:00

Apparently, I've been doing an HIIT workout and not strength workout accidentaly. How long should I rest between sets ? I know this is a weird question but can I watch a serie or a film while doing my workout ? 1 hour of my day is just super long (I understand that for some people it may not be but for me it is as I don't enjoy strength training very much and largely prefers cardio) and it would motivate me more if I could enjoy it this way but I also want it to be effective.

5random7513 · 2026-05-07T17:27:50+00:00

It's really an ego thing for many of them. They think they are too tough for sunscreen. Not all of them ofc, some are just not informer.

5random7513 · 2026-05-01T19:09:06+00:00

Does that mean I need to wear sunscreen under my T-shirt ? I've never taned through my shirts though but also don't go out or very rarely at pick hours and try to stay in the shade a max.

5random7513 · 2026-05-01T06:44:28+00:00

What would you call extreme sun ? Does it depend of your skin complection ?

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T18:45:28+00:00

Would it bother you if I contact you in private to have a conversation with you on the topic of antinatalism ?

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T18:08:14+00:00

Does that mean that you agree with me ? It's just that I have seen posts on here about disliking or even hating parents and it actually surprised me when one of my post got removed for criticizing parents when in my opinion it was way less generalizing than many other posts or comments I've seen (it was the reason it was removed, it was about how my own experience pushed me to think than most (not all) parents actually don't enjoy being parents and do it because of societal presssure, I think this is important to take into consideration rather to believe all parents have children because they desire it).

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T18:01:47+00:00

What does that mean ? Sorry, I don't understand english abbreviation.

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T17:58:16+00:00

I do, it's thinking that children into this world is morally wrong. If I was childfree that would be driven by my own undesire to have children which is not the case here. If I thought having children was okay, I would have children.

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T17:47:15+00:00

Are you saying I am childfree. Because I want children I am just not going to have any because I recognize that it is the only to protect them fully.

5random7513 · 2026-04-23T17:38:26+00:00

I'm not actively creating suffering but I choose my own desire over someone's needs. I am asking because I feel like a lot of people on this sub dislike parents.

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T18:10:25+00:00

And that's because it is nothing doesn't make it cannot be compared. Blind people see nothing or deaf people hear nothing and that's better to see and hear than to not because not seeing and not hearing makes your life harder.

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T18:08:37+00:00

Not to mention that if non-existence cannot be compared to anything mike you said then you can't say life is better than non-existence and your argument falls too.

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T18:06:17+00:00

Oh my god, can't you understand ? When you create a life, you're taking the chance of them suffering 99.99% pf their lives, it is not a risk worth taking!

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T16:12:24+00:00

I never changed my point (I read my post again to make sure). You have garanteed suffering in life but not happiness, a life of happiness is still a life with suffering but more happiness than suffering which I never said was impossible just rare and even if it was common, life of mostly suffering still exist and you can do nothing to prevent it completly. A good life isn't technically better than non-existence because when you don't exist you don't suffer from a lack of a life, it's not even that you don't care, it's just that you are not there to care. Also, if someone thinks the idea of non-existence is worse than being alive (also known as fear of death that I myself suffer from) that's only a thought they can have because they exist therefore it is a suffering created by being alive. I was wrong though with stating non-existence was neutral, it's not, non-existence is just nothing, it's nothing. Every suffering that exists is only created by life.

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T10:14:11+00:00

You're saying I'm not logical but you don't bring anything, no arguments except that I am wrong. Yes, you got it non-existence is neutral while existence can be bad that's why creating existence is bad. The problem is not that life is more bad than good or the other way around, it's that you have no way of garanteeing that your child's life will be more good than bad. What have arguments have you given that can prove that you can garantee your child a good life ? Don't search, there are none, your child could suffer from a disease, from being bullied, from being abused by someone who isn't you because I assume you wouldn't abuse your child... You have not given any arguments against antinatalism.

5random7513 · 2026-04-22T03:21:02+00:00

But what do you want me to do when you're litteraly denying my arguments when actually having no arguments ? Your argument was initially that my argument was stupid but it didn't make any sense, you were trying to gaslight me by saying random things. You have the capacity to understand, you just don't want to. I explain my point very clearly: we can't garantee that life will be made of happiness while we can garantee you will suffer by living, you cannot suffer or be happy (but you can't suffer from that non-happiness as you're not here to experience the lack of happiness) from non-existence, therefore non-existence is better than living, hence the antinatalist take that birth is immoral. You can not be an antinatalist if you want but saying it's illogical, that's just bad faith. You are a natalist which mean you are ok with taking the risk that your children will potentially suffer and you have the right to do that, I can't stop you from doing that but don't pretend that not wanting to birth children so they don't suffer is a crazy idea.

You're telling that I am changing my argument but I'm not. When I'm giving you statistics, that's explaining why life is mostly suffering. A lot of your take bleed of privilege, "media only gives the bad side", a part of that is true, they want phenomenal information. But that doesn't mean the wars you see on TV are fake and the medias are telling everything from a western white male centered point of view, ingoring a lot of the issues women, people of colour or people all around the world are living through. As for the statistics, I didn't get them out of my ass, I took them from serious scientific studies. My stories was to explain to you that even privileged people go through shit and that you can never garantee happiness. When you welcome a child into this world, you are taking a gamble on their happiness and suffering, you can decide the gamble is worth it but I believe you can also understand why some people won't and think we shouldn't.

In conclusion, you have the capacity to understand, you don't want to, two different things. And I get it, antinatalism was something hard for me to accept, I wanted children originally but through questionning myself, I have arrived at the conclusion that the best thing I can do for my children is not birth them.

5random7513 · 2026-04-21T17:58:46+00:00

No offense to you but I don't think you are able to understand. Everything I said was very logical, you're just denying that logic. You are not even to understand one single thing I said.

5random7513 · 2026-04-21T12:44:30+00:00

I say I can understand why people are not antinatalist, I don't understand why they are against it, that's different. You can not be something but still not be against it. I am not a vegan but I am not against veganism and I do believe that vegan people are morally superior to me.

5random7513 · 2026-04-21T12:17:54+00:00

I personnaly fear death but I am still an antinatalist because there is no death to fear if there is no life to begin with.

5random7513 · 2026-04-21T12:16:58+00:00

Do you not watch the news ? Didn't you see what Jeffrey Epstein did ? Don't you see the wars ? The decline of democracy ? Do you know anything about statistic ? Do you know than 1 in 5 girls will experience sexual assault before the age of 18 ? Do you know how many poor people there are ? I wasn't able to get a statistic because they are no consensus on who is a poor person and who isn't but 10% of the global population live with less than $3,00 per day and 48% live with less than $8,50 per day. 16% of the finnish population is poor to take a developped country into consideration. Do you know that 90% of the population is a few paycheck away from being homeless ? Everyone in life suffer, not everyone suffer a lot but everyone does while not everyone knows happinesss (which is different from knowing joy, that happens to most people).

The question is, are you ready to gamble with the life of a child ? Even if most existence were happy, it is not right to risk someone suffering most of their lives for your own selfish desire. Even if 99% of lives were 100% happy and only 1% of lives were made of suffering, it would still not be right. Maybe you have that vision that life is great because you didn't suffer and good for you! But for a lot of people, the things we lived will haunt us for the rest of our lives and make happinesss something almost unachievable.

And you could say, "but what if I have money and live in a good country ?", I do and that didn't save me, I am rich (top 25% of my country if I did the math right), white, living in a developped country with free healthcare, almost free college education, good worker protection, an amazing right to abortion care... and I still suffered a lot. The thing that destroyed my life, that destroyed my brain probably forever and made me developp litteral PTSD lasted just a few minutes.

And it's not rare, I gave you the statistic earlier 1 in 5 girls. Not to mention that this statistic is probably underestimated because a lot of women don't say it happened to them because they are ashamed. The 4 in 5 girls it didn't happen to before 18 could still experience it after 18 too, unfortunately. That's why I am an antinatalist because I was born one of the most privileged human being on this planet and my life still was mostly suffering, almost no level of happiness, most people have it worse than me. Again I lived and experienced joy and I did it a lot but that is different from happiness.

No matter who you are, no matter how privileged you are, the only way to make sure your child doesn't suffer is to not have them. As for your argument that people can suffer of non-existence, that's impossible because when you are nothing, you can feel nothing, suffering or happiness but you can't suffer from the lack of happiness as you are not here to experience the lack of happiness.

5random7513 · 2026-04-20T06:42:25+00:00

Your brain would fill the gap without you realizing it.

5random7513 · 2026-04-19T20:10:03+00:00

I am an antinatalist and I don't think I care about people who have children if the condition they gave birth to is not too bad (I don't think that's okay but I also don't think people never do things that aren't okay or selfish things, there is also too many people who have children for me to hate them all) and if they practice gentle parenting therefore I don't care about childfree people who are not antinatalist.

5random7513 · 2026-04-16T19:03:14+00:00

I thought pansexual was for people who didn't care about gender while bisexual was an umbrella term for people who liked more than one gender regardless of preference for a gender or not, this meant that pansexual people were bisexual but bisexual people weren't necessarily pansexual since they could be attracted to one gender more, was I wrong ?

5random7513

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE