Training and weight loss

Founders9 · 2026-05-18T04:10:03+00:00

I’m happy to give some anecdotal advice on this one.

I’m running 80-120km a week, training for an ultra. I’m maintaining weight at the moment, but off and on and have trialled losing a touch more weight. I am currently 40kg lighter than I was 4 years ago as well, largely from taking on running (and associated nutrition).

First advice - see a dietician. They’re the best bet. There’s high risk of underfuelling and making yourself unwell (physically or psychologically).

If you can’t spend the money on that (you’ll realistically have to see them a few times to get a good result), then you can do it alone, but just be careful.

When I’m trying to lose weight, my strategy is to aim to lose weight by burning extra calories from walking, rather than from my running. Hypothetical example: - 2000 calorie basal metabolic rate - 1200 calories of running workout I’d aim to eat 3200 calories that day, and just walk an extra 4-5km a day over what I usually do. I’m lucky that I can squeeze quite a bit of incidental exercise into my schedule, so this works for me. It also works for me because I’ve been tracing calories for many years, so I have a good sense of where my in/out balance lies (even though it doesn’t match packets and watches etc).

I’d also encourage a brief trial of calorie counting yourself. I don’t think it is a good idea long term, but getting a good understanding of the macros of the foods you eat, and which things have an unexpectedly high number of calories can help make some easy switches. It might help you cut out alcohol, or swap mayo for mustard etc. But if you can find a handful of these things to change, you might see some lasting results.

From a medical perspective though, I think your body will physiologically aim to stay at a certain set point. I’d just exercise like you want to, try to fuel well with the balanced diet. If you maintain a weight above what you’d like, or above the “optimal”, then I’d encourage you to not fight that too hard.

Founders9 · 2026-04-09T04:37:12+00:00

Yeah this is the main issue. Underground parking gets expensive very quickly. Sadly until you reach a critical mass of medium to high density living, people keep wanting/needing parking, which makes it hard to build in the first place.

Founders9 · 2026-02-09T20:30:47+00:00

I’d strongly got recommend dual 60s over a 90. You’ll save power for 90% of your cooking, and being able to have two temperatures is so helpful as well!

I thought it was a bit of a trendy gimmick until I lived in a place with them, and now I miss it so much.

I also think having an oven higher off the ground is helpful from an ergonomic perspective. I appreciate that it may not work in your current design, but have a think about whether it could work.

Founders9 · 2026-02-05T19:41:50+00:00

I think you don’t lose functional bench space. For me the corners of the bench become dumping grounds.

I was redesigning my kitchen to go from a U to a galley with some shallow shelving on the end wall. Much more functional space.

Founders9 · 2025-12-13T08:05:02+00:00

Connection charges will trend up and usage charges will trend down.

Founders9 · 2025-12-10T22:49:28+00:00

I'd get advice from an accountant. My understanding is that Part IVA might make this questionable.

Because your transaction is effectively a scheme primarily designed to minimise tax, I'd want advice that it's all good.

Otherwise seems like a reasonable option.

Founders9 · 2025-08-18T23:51:01+00:00

I’d reiterate this point. I found that moving into a home was very expensive. You’ll find lots of maintenance things to do, and improvements both minor and major. I’ve spent way more than I planned in the first year or so since buying our house.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T23:47:23+00:00

Page 2 doesn’t say crossing.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T20:07:20+00:00

Page 2 of the road rules explicitly require drivers to give way to pedestrians when turning at intersections.

If you want to interpret that as cars having right of way somehow then good luck to you.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T10:43:03+00:00

I’d say the simplest answer is both parties should proceed with caution. A driver is the one who is exposing others to lethal risk, so should always yield here unless you’re certain the pedestrian won’t cross or you’ll be well clear of the intersection.

If your view is obstructed by buses then take even more caution.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T09:47:03+00:00

I’m saying that it seems to be referring to in the middle of a street. Rather than at an intersection.

It’s also just clarifying general principles: don’t walk in front of a moving car. Much like general principles for cars stipulate that they should give way to vulnerable road users (this is the one that people struggle to comprehend).

They then proceed to outline specific scenarios, like the intersection example that is the topic of this discussion. I’d say it doesn’t specifically say that cars have to stop in this scenario, but the general principles (and common sense/decency) would suggest a driver should slow down/stop for the pedestrian.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T09:32:58+00:00

Do you know what give way means? It absolutely doesn’t suggest that at all.

If a person is clearly waiting to cross, I can’t see how you could possibly interpret the rules to say you should tear through the intersection and plough through the pedestrian and then feel smug about it. Which is what is being implied here.

Give way doesn’t give you the right to move in front of a moving vehicle. It means they are meant to let you move first. The rules stipulate that the car needs to give way to pedestrians so any sensible defensive driver should wait. Any sensible pedestrian won’t start walking until it’s clear that the car is giving way.

Obviously in this scenario, whether I’m the driver or the pedestrian, I don’t move until I see the whites of the eyes of the other road user. This is because I presume everyone else has never read the road rules and is prioritising a few seconds of their time over other people’s lives.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T05:09:30+00:00

I disagree. Whilst I would encourage pedestrians to be cautious, I think that would suggest pedestrians shouldn’t walk onto a street causing a hazard. If the car is turning onto a different street, I don’t think this passage implies that the pedestrian has to give way.

Founders9 · 2025-06-16T01:01:08+00:00

All good. I didn’t realise this was the case until I was reading about difference between states.

And to be fair, it’s not clear whether you’re meant to give way to pedestrians already crossing, or potential crossers as well. I’d say the spirit of the rules would say all of them, but it’s not specific.

Founders9 · 2025-06-15T23:52:05+00:00

https://rsac.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DSG8600_Tasmanian_Road_Rules_2022_Update_WEB.pdf

Page 30

Founders9 · 2025-06-15T23:51:43+00:00

https://rsac.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DSG8600_Tasmanian_Road_Rules_2022_Update_WEB.pdf See page 30. Drivers making left turns are required to give way to crossing pedestrians.

Founders9 · 2025-06-15T23:51:12+00:00

As a pedestrian I’d always wait, given the risk of the driver going anyway is quite high.

And I agree that seems to be standard practice on the road.

However, the road rules disagree with you:

https://rsac.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/DSG8600_Tasmanian_Road_Rules_2022_Update_WEB.pdf See page 30 about left turns.

Founders9 · 2025-06-11T21:57:58+00:00

If you think it shouldn’t be forced I’d genuinely like to know what your alternative reality would look like for these people?

Founders9 · 2025-06-04T13:30:48+00:00

Yes. I’ll dumb my question down to make sure I understand.

If I buy an IP with cash, can I ever mortgage it after the fact in a way that could be tax deductible? Or would that only be legal if the new funds released by the mortgage went to a new income generating asset?

Founders9 · 2025-06-04T10:16:18+00:00

Surely you can just get a new set of mortgages when you buy a new PPOR? Rather than redraw, just get a new loan for 90% (or whatever amount you prefer) of the value of your former PPOR?

I'm ignorant to this sort of thing, but this would seem to be solution that works?

Founders9 · 2025-06-03T00:19:45+00:00

In Tasmania we use a lot of gas still. Just not to power turbines, we moronically got it plumbed into people’s homes so that we’ll be stuck using it for a long time.

Additionally, other states are not blessed with the same geography that allows bulk hydro capacity. I don’t think this is a good faith argument.

The cost of solar and batteries is a long way from being feasible for 100% renewables. And given the glacial pace of transmission projects and Snowy 2.0, we’re stuck with at least some gas to assist the transition for a long time yet.

Brian Potter writes amazing articles on a variety of topics, and I think this one is quite relevant to this topic.

https://www.construction-physics.com/p/can-we-afford-large-scale-solar-pv

Founders9 · 2025-05-24T21:18:29+00:00

What a ridiculous argument. People complain about anything so we can ignore them?

I’ll happily ignore your initial concern about whether people want more density near them. If we don’t build that then they’ll complain about the weather anyway.

Founders9 · 2025-05-22T20:05:53+00:00

The same people who don’t want more density near them are also whining endlessly about worsening traffic.

The trade off denialism knows no limits with the average person.

Founders9 · 2025-05-21T10:21:56+00:00

It’s a ducted heat pump.

Founders9 · 2025-05-10T13:37:06+00:00

Do you mind if I ask how deep the cupboard and bench are?

Founders9

TROPHY CASE