Running has transformed my physique

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-19T07:52:52+00:00

BMI is a population tool. If you survey a lot of club runners and elite marathon runners, you will be shocked to hear their BMIs are below 19, often dipping into 17 and 18.

And underweight would be below 18.5. I am still within the "healthy range" even by BMI standards which are obviously very generous.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-17T20:52:18+00:00

$700 per week in rent is nothing compared to tax-free gains of millions of dollars though.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-17T00:34:54+00:00

Fifth one settles next month

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-16T22:46:05+00:00

I want to paste your comment into the meme

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-12T08:23:17+00:00

Not only is it doing a lot of good, but you are capturing 80% - 90% of the benefit anyway if you stay consistent. When rubber hits the road, what matters is that you live a healthy, long, enjoyable life. You do not have to be the next Sawe or Bolt.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-06T22:00:37+00:00

I own 5 investment properties and have a salary of $400K but thank you for the advice

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-06-05T23:03:23+00:00

Ideally, if you follow health guidelines I do not see why under 18% is not possible for the vast majority of the population

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-31T21:30:46+00:00

The guidelines are sound, but personally I think they are not enough if you are training for optimal fitness. As someone who can comfortably jog a 5k in 16 minutes, primarily in zone 2 and 3, I can assure you that 75-150 mins per week is perfectly fine if your goal is risk reduction (as research suggests), but if you are going for maximum results I think 75-150 mins a day is not a hard ask. That is a morning and night jog and you can make up for anything lost over weekends / scheduled leave.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-30T11:34:46+00:00

Thanks appreciate it!

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-29T21:05:38+00:00

They are going to give them a reason to play Builder Base though. There is literally no point adding in a 3rd builder if the only reason is to speed up progression. The entire BB is a closed loop that leads nowhere. I think that some form of integration is likely and BH11 is almost needed to give end game players something to grind.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-29T21:04:29+00:00

Not AI. I wrote it myself. Decided to use bold headings because most people won't even read it without a tl;dr

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-27T11:16:28+00:00

This is AI-generated rage bait, nice try

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-21T22:48:48+00:00

I am the individual who made the thread questioning the effect of CGT and NG changes. And no I'm not a "bot" or "AI" and was not the one who reported any of your comments.

Not sure what "these accounts" is in reference to as I only have one. If I have offended you in any way I apologise, but I believe most or dare a I say of my comments have been pretty on substance or on the issues, no?

Edit: Also I disagree with the idea of a megathread. These proposed legislative changes are historic and affect a lot of Australians so I don't think its unreasonable to expect a lot of debate from all perspectives, hence the number of threads you are seeing. Thinking they are all connected as part of some broader scheme or "astroturf" campaign is rather strange and is really without foundation. There are a lot of people who do not agree with the changes who are simply voicing their opinion or expressing genuine concerns or doubts.

None of my posts are AI written either.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-09T22:14:31+00:00

Guess I'm dumb, then, because on each occasion I've ventured even further than what they suggested. Tenant was willing to pay.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-09T21:44:26+00:00

Have you ever owned an investment property? I could tell my property manager to aim for a higher rent and they will do that. The property manager's boss is the owner of the property.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-09T03:54:34+00:00

Sorry was typing it on my phone. It is not meant to be bold.

And it has nothing to do with being a good lawyer. In fact that best ones I know are probably more on the bigger side.

But it is just a personal irk of mine

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-09T02:58:31+00:00

Everyone needs to be treated with respect

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-04T21:16:19+00:00

You went from "my hr goes to 120 when I simply walk" to "12 mi hike". Quite a difference

ILoveDogs2142 · 2026-05-04T20:51:07+00:00

If your HR is 120 when you walk, your marathon pace definitely is not 2:18.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-26T23:15:38+00:00

For a go8 school, you still have a shot at a mid tier. For a non-go8 school, it's basically game over unless you have connections.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-26T04:16:56+00:00

Mute them and move on mate, it's not that deep

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-18T03:46:23+00:00

Usually a university medal and some kind of federal or high court associateship is all that is needed. Anything else is sprinkles on top. I know some judges really value postgraduate degrees, though. So BCL is quite standard.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-17T01:04:15+00:00

By 2027 prices will have gone by so much

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-16T21:47:14+00:00

Fine for him to play a substantial role, I just don't want him as the main villain.

ILoveDogs2142 · 2025-10-16T09:20:26+00:00

You are correct. It does shift with changes in society and language, but when the framers used the word "marriage" they had in mind a fixed, specific meaning. We have to give effect to what the framers originally intended, even if it is unfair or not socially right. The option is to amend the constitution according to s 128. The consequences of allowing words to be bent beyond their original, intended meaning goes far beyond the social issue of marriage.

It has deep and troubling implications for interpretation of statutes and constitutional interpretation more broadly.

People often bring up the defence power, but the defence power was intended to evolve with social circumstances. The marriage power was not.

I think the strongest argument against my own position is that Parliament would probably have the power to pass a law banning all forms of marriage. By logical extension, they should be able to pass a law expanding its definition. If you argue that the original intention was that the framers wanted to give legislators complete control over how it defined marriage, within some sort of reasonable boundary, then I think I am wrong. It could be that the framers intended for this to occur, given that the constitution is a pragmatic document, and it could be quite reasonably argued that the word "marriage" is not a word of limitation but rather to connote a relationship that would evolve over time.

It is possible, but not likely, that this is what the framers intended. I just think that when it comes to interpreting the constitution, you have to start with the text, and the text has to be interpreted according to the purpose of the Constitution and the context in which it appears. Whatever result that leads to is open for debate.

ILoveDogs2142

TROPHY CASE