Reminder to lift weights, eat healthy and stay in shape comrades

t. landwhales

This is shit. 90% of those shouldn't even be practiced anymore.

then don't post in the thread? Getting offended over /leftyfit/ screams "i'm an insecure dyel"

What are good martial arts to learn?

, who are anti-working out

Absolutely disgusting

No, and this type of thinking is toxic. I cant find anything explicitly wrong with what he is saying, but I guarantee this poster is unhealthy and/or promotes being unhealthy.

This

This thread needs more infographics.

yeah, I'm a bit of a fatty right now but working out is good, everyone, regardless of who you are (unless you really can't)

it's still good to work out though

Just work out using a sycthe and farm shit, goddamn.

kys

That's the joke, "Do you want to win the fight?" "No"

Boxing, judo, BJJ, kickboxing, wrestling, sambo

So… How to make pipebombs.

That's an old meme, I meant the second text.

1. How do I eat healthy on a budget?
2. A gym is opening in my town, what should I use to get a flat stomach and feminine body?
3. How does anyone build "healthy habits" like exercising and stretching so I can stay healthy?

Attached: image-65.jpg (1125x1886, 1.06M)

google it nerd

Get a Sycthe/Sickle and farm your own shit.

Attached: Tractor_Gang.jpg (700x495, 64.13K)

you'll probably want to do squats and lunges for assbuilding and cardio

Check this out

reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/getting_started

There's more to getting fit than lifting. Cardio is important, keeping a good BMI, having a good diet etc.
Being able to run for long distances will help more than being muscular.

Attached: lenin broom.jpg (1091x1500, 356.42K)

It's not hard, like 60% of all food you eat should be veggies, 20% meat/eggs and the rest misc. like nuts and fruit. Healthy meals are usually simplest: Chicken, mushrooms, onions, carrots with a side of rice or beans. The only liquids you should drink are water and tea/coffee, maybe milk if you need extra protein on the cheap. Also don't fall for meme chemistry about soy or antioxidants and shit, just stick to unprocessed meat and veggies and you can't go wrong.
Just fucking do it faggot. Get an mp3 player put on a podcast and go jog/bike for half an hour a few times a week.

Attached: gumball eyebrows.gif (473x428, 36.42K)

The day leftypol went too far

Have you never built a habit before? You fail until it becomes second nature; each time you resume it becomes a bit easier. Routines can be difficult to establish, sure, but this one will be well worth the effort.

Attached: obama fitness.png (635x594 914.43 KB, 260.4K)

While trying to lift daily, do something fun like hike in the forest or go mountain climbing.
For the death of me I can't stand jogging around town because there's a lot of retards everywhere.
But I love going through forest and mountains, with friends or alone.
So if you have nature nearby, go, and honestly mountain climbing is a lot of fun, stop being nerds

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 13.16K)

KYS you fucking fat fuck

Attached: fat american scooter tipper.jpg (800x600, 76.43K)

You get fit for physical strength and discipline, extending your suffering is the downside.

Destroyed by

i bet in the 30s you'd have told us to hold your head over an industrial chimney and take a deep breath regularly so we match proletarian aesthetic rather than bourgeois liberals healthy lungs, huh?
fucking faggot go kill yourself, imbecile cunt

I bet if a reactionary called you a soy boy bugman for not inhaling chimney smog, you'd suck it down in a heart beat like Rocky Mountain air, you stupid piece of shit. lmao

Hate to say it, but the ☭TANKIE☭s are correct. The soyboy meme is reactionary but it does highlight a denomination of spineless, consumerist liberals that we should posit ourselves as an opposition to.
There is nothing fascist about self discipline, the original fascist movements were plagiarizing most of their aesthe from worker movements.

And I'm a Leftcom, not even a ML.

Attached: 1296797705063.jpg (798x582, 52.06K)

shit

seconding this

You can't have a good BMI if you lift. The extra muscle mass is gonna skew the number towards obese, even if you have a healthy level of body fat. Lifting weights is generally the best way to get a healthy body - it strengthens your joints, back, raises your metabolism, and generally makes everything you do that much easier (even improves cardio a little). That said, being able to run without keeling over is pretty important, though that's again much easier to improve if you're already strong.

Learn to cook and know a little basic biology. The most important thing is to get all the energy and nutrients you need for your body, without getting too much (everything in moderation). Carbs, like rice and potatoes, are great for energy (and very cheap). Sugars and certain starches (like white bread) are too good for energy and should be avoided. Fibres are good for your gut, but you can't live off them. Proteins are necessary to maintain your body and build muscle. 60 grams a day is the healthy minimum for your average (male) NEET. 2 grams per kilo bodyweight is a nice rule of thumb for an active person. Fat is not the devil and you need a little, but not too much. Other important nutrients come from fruits and veggies.
With that, most of your diet is gonna be staple foods like rice and potatoes, with enough meat and veggies and other stuff to fill your other nutritional needs (this coincidentally is also the way we've eaten since we invented agriculture). Stay away from fad diets - they don't work and they don't stick. When you gain weight, it's because you're eating more than you're using. The solution is to eat less or use more (preferably the latter). It goes the other way round too: if you want to gain muscle and be strong, you have to eat more - you can't gain muscle and lose weight at the same time.
Lift weights. Starting Strength is a good program. If you don't body-build or take steroids, it's not gonna make you look like a man, but it's definitely gonna get you a flat stomach, a nice ass, and enough strength to suplex anyone who wants to tap it.
By doing them, and doing them even when you don't want to. It's hard at first, and you're gonna fail a few times, but so long as keep at it and it isn't too hard or demoralising (like fad diets or crossfit) it eventually becomes a habit.

jesus fucking christ I hate leftists so god damn much. I make a thread about fucking fitness and I come back to you fucking dorks analyzing the liberal, reactionary implications of a healthy lifestyle. You suck the fun out of everything. I don't even know why I come to this shit hole anymore.

Just a few pedants who are hiding their lack of self-discipline behind pseudo-leftist rhetoric. There'll always be idiots on the internet.

Friendly reminder that a whole foods vegan diet is the only option for a truly optimal diet. :)

Attached: cliff.jpg (1920x1200, 1.04M)

I shit on your optimal diet, you have to intake a much larger mass of food if you want the same caloric boost you get from animal products, I don't have the fucking time to eat a bucket full of pig feed because it is "healthier", and these claims are dubious on their own.

want to eat healthy? keep grains and vegetables about 70-80% of your diet, 5-10% dairy & eggs and 10-15% meat. Vegetables and cereals>bread. Prepared meat>processed meat, processed meat and high sugar is why everyone is swelling up into a larder these days. Also because of bread.

Friendly reminder that a vegan diet requires shittons of planning to be healthy, doesn't provide all necessary nutrients without supplements, and is either really expensive or really labour intensive (or both). Meat and other animal products are a better source of protein and are packed with other essential nutrients. Cholesterol is a meme. A person with a balanced diet is rarely gonna have problems with cholesterol, and the western obsession with avoiding "bad foods" and lifestyle diseases is pathological and unhealthy and needs to stop.

Caloric density is a downside unless you're bulking, the average person would heavily benefit from eating less dense food.
Also, what are rice, peanut butter (no added sugar) plant oils, fruit, etc?

Complete horseshit. Literally the only things you might be deficient in are D and b12, which everyone should supplement. Eat a multivitamin.
Bullshit, whole foods vegan eating bulk dried beans, veggies and some fruits is cheap as fuck
Cook in bulk, you cannot be properly healthy without making your own food.
Horseshit, vegan options are more protein dense per calorie, have more nutrients and are not conducive to weight gain like meat and dairy.
Smoke cigarettes in balance, user, moderation is always best, where did my monthly moderate hit of coke go?

Attached: CIZJ70gWcAEIq-l.png (578x448, 15.46K)

Getting swole is pointless. Instead have a run every day to stay in good health. Also try to eat good and healthy stuff, but also allow yourself to enjoy it. All these crazy diets don't work for most people. We like food too much.

There are plenty of examples of poorly planned vegan diets leading to malnutrition. Animal-based diets are much easier in that regard
Literally supplements. If your diet requires something that you could not theoretically make yourself, it's not a good diet. Supplements are a last resort when you can't properly diet, it should not be a part of any planned diet.
See
Cooking in bulk doesn't make a thing less labour intensive. Time is money, and time spent making this week's bean gruel is time that could be spent on more fulfilling things (and with freshly made food).
Proteins per calorie means very little - it just means you have to get those calories somewhere else. Vegetable proteins don't digest as well as animal proteins, and you need to eat more weight in vegetables to get the same proteins as in meat or eggs.
Food doesn't magically make you gain weight. Weight gain comes from excess calorie intake. The solution is to cut calorie intake - which can be done by cutting on staple foods, sugars, or fats - or use more calories. Calories are energy, and less energy is not always good. Too little energy and you starve. The goal of any diet is not to starve yourself, it is to provide all the nutrients and energy you need to function, without overdoing it (in other words: balance). Some nutrients in meat are dangerous in large quantities, but necessary in smaller quantities. Certain chemicals in cigs are dangerous in any quantity - that's why they're unhealthy.

Eventually humanity ought to move to a largely vegan diet because of environmental concerns, and it's good to limit your consumption of animal products. I don't care about the health bullshit though, nor about the animals suffering. They're fucking animals. Get over it.

If you eat nothing but oreos, sure, but we're talking about a planned wholefoods vegan diet, the normal unplanned diet in burger land and the UK also leads to malnutrition as well as obesity. Not an argument.
This is a retarded argument, half the vitamins required to live aren't made by the body but rather the gut flora. Further, until you provide evidence that supplements are bad beyond a naturalistic fallacy you have nothing.
I D E O L O G Y
Cooking is fun as shit and that's rich coming from someone posting on an image board.
Horseshit
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1997115/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25628520
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3698202/

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (632x494, 210.25K)

Name the trait in animals that if present in humans would allow for the rape, murder and consumption thereof on a mass scale.

Attached: DANCW.PNG (311x284, 179.97K)

Attached: Catherine Ribeiro - La Guillotine Permanente.mp4 (1280x720, 1.92M)

Go fuck yourself, being overweight is a health hazard. T. Fat person trying to improve.

The rich, as sentient beings with moral agency, must be held to account for exactly their crimes. Eating them is entire consistent with vegan ethics.

Attached: cummy.jpg (868x572, 94.91K)

Doesn't human flesh supposedly taste like rich veal

Especially from Porky. Aside from prions being a bitch I honestly cannot think of a reason not to eat porky.

Attached: cream.jpg (202x180, 35.41K)

Hey guys. I just started a diet of purely chocolate and baked beans after i got too thin during my acrobatic tryouts. But now im clocking in at around 300 pounds on a good day. Its not that i want to, i just crave junk food now… wat do i do?

Animals get raped, murdered and consumed endlessly in nature. They're completely dependent on it. I don't see how you can condemn humans but allow nature to go its course. That's logically inconsistent to me. We ought to treat our animals with respect, that's true, but we still get to eat them.

Naturalist fallacy.
Humans are moral agents, most animals are moral patients, holding retarded people to ethical standards in a survival situation no less would be stupid, as would be expecting ethical reasoning from animals. Normal humans have no such excuse.
Name the trait in animals that if present in humans would allow for the rape, murder and consumption thereof on a mass scale.

Attached: commin.png (300x168, 24.89K)

Not my intention. My point is that your position is impossible to uphold consistently.
Right. So we don't give retarded people the chance to break ethical standards. We don't put them in survival situations. With animals we're completely fine with it. We even prefer if they're put in survival situations. There's no way to justify this.
Lack of intelligence mostly.

And how have we gotten those vitamins for thousands of years? By eating ruminants, who consume the gut flora and store the vitamins in their eat by, well, ruminating. If a diet requires me to IV the products of a fucking chemical plant when I can get those same nutrients in a better way by not doing the diet, then I won't do the diet.
You don't know what ideology means. We live in a capitalist society where our time is literally quantified in money values. Admitting that is not ideology, it's a statement of fact.
That's, like, your opinion, man. If you like spending so much time cooking, that's great, but don't expect such a diet to apply to everyone, because not everyone will HAVE the time.
I might find grass tasty, and it doesn't make me fat, but that doesn't make it a good source of protein, nor does it make for a healthy diet.
You're just spouting memes. You don't know what you're talking about. Obesity, heart disease, and diabetes have very specific causes that have been researched extensively. All of them ultimately stem from an excess of nutrients or energy (excess energy, fat and cholesterol, and sugar respectively). There is no magic food that suddenly gives you diabetes or makes you fat.
Which is why you don't make your entire diet lard, and meat (especially lean meat) is anything but energy dense. Just eat less
Yeahno. Diabetes has been very conclusively tied to an excessive intake of sugar and processed starches - those are the things that make your blood sugar fluctuate the most and thus promote the production of insulin, and it is this fluctuation that eventually causes the cells to no longer respond to insulin (ie. diabetes). Meat contains neither.
Weight gain is solely tied to energy consumption vs energy use. If you want to gain muscle, work out and eat more. An animal-based diet just so happens to be the best way to do this. If you want to be a stick, starve yourself, and in that case it doesn't matter if you eat grass.
Meat is not krokodil, and it is not tobacco. If it was as toxic as you say, we would literally be dying from all the meat in our bodies. There is nothing in meat that is inherently toxic, there are only certain nutrients that are bad in large quantities. Every molecule in meat is something our body uses in its day-to-day functioning - to call them toxic is like calling water (another substance dangerous in high quantities) toxic.

Don't derail the thread with your bullshit. We've already had a 500+-post thread about this and you're still wrong. Make another thread if you wanna sperg out.

Animals and the mentally retarded are moral patients, they are incapable of ethical reasoning and thereby cannot be held accountable to any ethical standard. When you leave a baby alone in a room with a hungry dog/mentally retarded person harm to the baby is not their fault as they do not have the ability to conceive why harming it is wrong. Conversely we, as sentient beings capable of reasoning, are moral agents and would be held accountable for harming either the dog or retard unless in self defense.
So it's completely fine to rape and eat retards?

Attached: chicken.jpg (600x600, 53.86K)

Why are animals moral patients?
Sapient beings. Sentience is being capable of emotion. Sapience is being capable of reasoning.
Retards are still human, and they're still capable of reasoning. I see you haven't changed your stupid argument.

You've again misunderstood me. I don't think they have any moral responsibility.
It would obviously be my fault for leaving them alone like that. So how am I going to justify leaving a bunch of antilopes alone with a lion? I should separate them right away. The lion will be on a strictly vegan diet from now on.
It wouldn't be immoral, but nevertheless disgusting. I'd be more concerned about your psychology than about the well-being of the retard.

Because they are sentient but not capable of moral reasoning. (in most cases, gorillas probably are, given that they also evolved language)
Plants, by comparison are not capable of moral reasoning and are not sentient, they would thereby not be morally considerable at all.
I'd correct that to being capable of subjective experience, emotion is clumsy in that context and to anthropocentric to be useful as a general term.
>Retards are still human, and they're still capable of reasoning. I see you haven't changed your stupid argument.
In the hypothetical scenario that we create AI completely identical to a human would its lack of species membership allow you to kill it?
Depends on your retard, some are but once you get in to so stunted they're about 5 mentally they don't even have self image, let alone the capacity for complex reasoning. Sure, they can solve problems but so can literally any animal with a brain.

In the same way that you do not have the obligation to personally donate all your surplus money to charity you do not have the positive obligation to fix the ecosystem. Rather, you have the negative responsibility of not harming sentient beings yourself, as a moral agent. (Further, you couldn't "fix" the ecosystem without killing all natural carnivores who have justification for meat eating, just as we would if we needed meat to survive.)
pic related

Attached: meatball.jpg (320x180, 6.71K)

that sounds like bullshit, fam. i mean, human diet isn't centered around meat, like nobody eats steak every single meal every single day, that'd be pretty mental and nutritionally deficient, so at a glance, it doesn't seem like meat is an extremely central component of a diet.

i can see vegan diets being complicated if you are used to eating out every single day, which I do. but procuring a healthy and nutritious vegan meal sounds extremely feasible if you investigate a little bit and cook your own meals.

i should start cooking, hmmm

I do have that obligation though.

Ill just make abunch of pipe bombs

Frankly I love umami far too much. Vegan diets are either bland, bitter or somehow both. No ty.

If it was completely identical to humans it would be human.
But that doesn't address his argument. If it is morally wrong to neglect allow a toddler to be eaten by wild animals, then it would also be morally wrong to allow an antelope to be eaten. Allowing a toddler to be eaten is plainly wrong, while allowing an antelope to be eaten isn't. Why is that?

I didn't mean "eat solely meat". An animal-based diet in this context is a diet which uses animal-based foods as a source of protein and other nutrients - there would still be staple foods and vegetables. Plants are a worse source of protein than meat - there is less protein per kilo and it is either more labour intensive to make, more expensive, or both - and a solely plant-based diet is not nutritionally complete, unless you eat you own feces or use artificial supplements. The specific problem is that certain essential nutrients are only produced by gut bacteria in an area where we can't digest them. In order to get them, we either need to re-digest the food to get the bacteria (ie. eat shit) or eat another animal which has them. Another option is to breed those bacteria in a vat and condense those nutrients in a pill. If a diet requires me to eat shit or take a pill, I'm not gonna use it. Ultimately, a whole vegan diet is a far cry from an optimal diet unless you're already vegan.

Pure sophestry

Soyboys are just anybody they dont like, dont give a single point of merit to their memes.

You don't. Categorical moral obligations can only be negative, not positive, the consequence of positive imperatives would be awful. For instance, eating porky wouldn't just be permissible, you'd OUGHT do it, or try, right now.

It would be a simulated consciousness in a computer with no body, it cannot by definition be human.
Placing a toddler in a room with a hungry animal is wrong, neglecting to check every room for possible endangered children at all times is not wrong. Further, carnivores like lions and snakes literally cannot eat anything other than meat, they have a perfectly valid justification for eating it. (I'd also argue that if there were a toddler in a room with a starving animal and you had no responsibility at all in the situation coming to pass but merely the ability to stop it you would not have an obligation to do so. There's no argument that implies you ought save that toddler without creating inconsistent scenarios like the obligation to save all children on earth.)

Attached: doged.jpg (411x403, 73.73K)

Then it would not be completely identical. A simulated consciousness is not the same as a consciousness. It isn't actually conscious, it's just programmed to act like it is.
But neither are what was described. We are talking about actively watching a child get torn apart by a wild animal. According to practically every moral standard, we are obligated to intervene. Failing to intervene is a moral failure, cowardice. And yet we are also expected to not intervene when an animal is killed. There are obviously different moral standards at work: every child is sacred, but animals aren't.
That would not be consistent with any real life system of morality. You might have been able to come to that stupid conclusion in your head, but every other person would say that you failed in your obligation to protect the child. You were the only one who could do something and you did nothing. You failed. You are not able to "save all children on earth", thus you cannot reasonably be expected to do it, but you are expected to uphold the common obligation of adult people to protect and nurture the children you can (or at least try). And yet we have no obligation to protect animals from harm. Your argument requires that we treat children and animals the same (otherwise there would be no contradiction in treating them differently), since they both are "moral patients", and yet it's plain to see that no ethical system treats them the same, and you don't either.
Now go make a new thread. This is about health and nutrition, not ethics.

I'm a hedonist so yeah pretty much.

It's only simulated in the respect that it's run on an emulated version of a brain instead of the native hardware, it would still be a sentient being, killing it would be wrong.
1. I wouldn't intervene, I don't feel I have any obligation, if I did I'd also have the obligation to work tirelessly and donate everything over basic caloric need to charity.
2. Most people wouldn't intervene if no one would know they didn't.
3. Any argument made to result in that obligation results in shit you wouldn't accept like the obligation to charity.
You're ethically obligated to not kill animals yourself, that's it.
This is the result of hypocrisy, not ethical reasoning. The homo-economicus model of behavior has been BTFO before and will again.
You cannot derive an ethical ought from a factual is, people are hypocrites, user, don't be like them.
Appeal to the majority
This is an appeal to futility, if the implication of an ethical system is too hard that does not mean it is no longer an implication.
Because the survival of the individual is obviously primary to some extent in any logical system, I wouldn't fault a drowning man for throwing a child off a raft in the Titanic if it meant he lived, it's illogical to value another existence which cannot be actually verified as more than your own, which you know is real, if you're ethically prioritizing the existence of sentient beings.
In that they both not be harmed, yes. Children, as potential sapients, would be more valuable than an animal though.

Attached: Benis.jpg (960x720, 169.12K)

So you're not just a coward, you're a psycho.
What reason do you have to believe that? And even if they did, that wouldn't make their inaction any less of a moral failure. They are obligated to intervene.
Why wouldn't you be obligated to help the poor? Plenty of ethical systems do have such an obligation. You have the means of helping a person in need, thus you should help them. Same thing with hospitality: if a person comes to your house in need of shelter, help, a phone, then you are obligated to provide them. Every society has obligations like this.
That's what you say, but I see no reason why I should listen to you. Your argument makes no sense.
Why would it be hypocritical? Hypocrisy is to say one thing and do another. We don't protect children because "hurr, they have feels". We protect them because they're children
Ethical systems aren't just whatever you feel is reasonable. It's part of a social system. These systems are created by all the people in society, and the ethical system of every society would agree that you were wrong to do nothing. You made the conscious decision to let the child die.
This is utterly insane. This has nothing to do with ethics, this is just you trying to rationalise your malfunctioning brain. The only logical conclusion to this line of thought is that you are the only person in the universe who is worth a damn. That is the moral system of a psychopath. According to any actual ethical system, including the one that was implemented on the Titanic, the child goes on the raft. Pushing them off the raft is a moral failure. You can understand why he would do it, but it's still wrong. Survival of the individual has never been primary in any ethical system, since these systems aren't personal, but social. People are expected to risk their lives and sacrifice themselves all the time. An adult is expected to sacrifice themself to protect a child - most societies promote this behaviour, and punish those who fail to do it when it is expected of them.
I'm not gonna argue any more with you. You haven't changed your argument and you aren't any more convincing. In fact, whatever weird system you choose to follow has somehow become even more crazy and detached from reality than before. No ethical system works the way yours does, and it leads to conclusions that are completely bizarre and which would have you hounded under any ethical system created by functioning human beings.

I don't want to get mauled by a dog, I don't like kids, I have no obligation to help, I'm not doing shit, tbh.
You can literally pressure the average joe into murdering someone with repeated electrical shocks to the cranium if they're made to think no one will find out.
Positive obligations are a bad idea to acknowledge in a system of ethics because they result in shit like giving everything you own beyond bare nutrition and shelter to charity.
Charity is a moral good but you are no obligated to do good, but rather to not do that which is against the good.
If it is wrong to murder humans and eat them it is also wrong to do so to animals because there is no distinction that can be made and consistently be held in all circumstances.
Because there is no distinction between human children and the average animal that grants them more moral consideration than the animal to the extent that warrants vastly differential treatment.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (750x733, 292K)

...

Boxing, Muy Thai, MMA, Jujitsu, Combat Sambo

Addendum
If you do boxing or Muy Thai you should learn a grappling art as well so you're ground game isn't complete shit

It's impossible to pursue intellectual endeavors and a rigorous exercise routine at the same time. After a workout session I'm almost always too exhausted to ready anything even remotely mentally taxing.

1. what the fuck are you doing, routine wise? You shouldn't be wasted after EVERY workout, consider taking a BCAA after and some caffeine, also, if you're working that hard make sure you're in caloric surplus, can't gain muscle without it. (unless you're fat, in which case honestly consider a vitamin aided fast)
2. What are you eating? Personally there are certain foods that just wipe me out, like potatoes, fuck potatoes. Meat in general as well (the initial reason I went vegan actually) just makes me feel gross and cloudy.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (731x434, 404.3K)

Who are you quoting?

I wouldn't have problem with that if they were not discussing morals of eating meat, this is not thread about working out and health

it's just veganite brain damage showing

I wouldn't have problem with that if they were not discussing morals of eating meat, this is thread about working out and health

it's just veganite brain damage showing

So much wrong with this post. First off, the fact that the U.S. proletariat is so fat is part of the reason that we are complacent. Being unhealthy makes people depressed, and when people are depressed they are apathetic. This isn't any hard hitting theory, it's just fucking common sense. The marketing of an unhealthy lifestyle to American workers serves as a tool of the bourgeois to keep the proletariat complacent.

Second, there is nothing "lifestylist" about promoting a healthy proletarian lifestyle. The term lifestylism refers to the belief that non-political aspects of ones lifestyle such as what kind of music one listens to, what kind of clothes they wear, or what kind of drugs they take can affect political change. Fitness is political in the same way that gun ownership is political. By becoming stronger in body and in will you are directly increasing you capacity for violence. The capacity for violence is the foundation of political power. The goal of the communist movement is to develop the working class to where it impose its rule upon the whole of society. How exactly are we supposed to do this if we are fat and weak?

If we want a revolution, we need to be capable of violence. We need to be strong in body and in will, we need to be organized and we need to be armed. Work out, eat well, read books, buy a gun, join a union, dress well, look good, sound smart, and demand that your comrades do the same. Selling newspapers and shit posting isn't going to cut it.

Here is a list of reasons why you should work out and eat your veggies:
- It makes you happier.
- It will help us beat the shit out of class traitors.
- It helps build discipline and willpower overall which will help with studying theory.
- Depending on the activity, exercise can be a great excuse to socialize and meet new people.
- Some forms of exercise encourage teamwork.
- Looking good is good optics for the movement.

Typical weak minded ☭TANKIE☭.

Veganism is gay. Meat, eggs, and moldy cheese is tasty and there is nothing wrong with killing animals. This isn't to say that there aren't massive ecological and ethical issues with industrial farming practices, but "going vegan" isn't going to fix this. A revolution might as long as we prioritize ecological stewardship.

You should eat mostly fruits and vegetables with plenty of nuts, seeds, legumes, fungi, birds, eggs, and fish all for protien. Red meat is okay once in a while but is unhealthy to eat as your main source of protien. Rice and potatoes are good for filling up on a budget but shouldn't be a big portion of your diet if you can afford otherwise as they don't have much nutritional value. Bread and most dairy products should be avoided. Occasional yogurt and cheese is okay. You should learn to garden and to cook for yourself. Self reliance is a good quality within itself, and it is much easier to be able to afford eating well when you put some work into preparation.

GANG

Attached: smoke.jpg (509x720, 47.48K)

Should read:
develop the working class to where it is able to impose its rule upon

Attached: smoke4.jpg (997x318, 72.36K)

Just gonna leave this here

Attached: 89.JPG (836x1442 140.36 KB, 406.98K)

Eh. I do fine with body-weight exercises. I did free weights for about a year and definitely bulked up a lot faster, but as long as you are willing to do a few hundred reps each session, push ups and pull ups are really all you need (and cardio of course). I guess to start out it's smart to go with weights so you don't get burnt out.

Attached: smoke1.jpg (500x344, 16.96K)

This.
Disgusting fashy policy.

faggot

You absolutely can if you have your own weights (which is actually cheaper than the gym in the long term).

Are these basically saying I need to join a gym and won't get swole if I work out at home?

If you have some literature for this, I'd like to see it. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.