Y’all, this is me. I can’t believe I ever got that unhealthy. I don’t like the word fat, but it’s fairly accurate. After having our first son, I stopped working out almost entirely. Being active duty military, I still had to meet certain requirements. I still met them, but I didn’t exceed them by any means. Once I hit this low point, (left photo) I decided it was time to get healthy. However, I didn’t know what my goal was. My inspiration came from my oldest son, who firmly believes that I am Captain America. I decided I wanted to cosplay the star spangled man with the plan, but I didn’t want to be one of the chubby heroes at Comic-Con. I wanted to be the type of guy that my son could still believe in. So, I started out rough. I have free access to a gym on base, but I figured if I’m paying for it I’m more likely to use it. So I got my planet fitness membership. It was slow going at first. I was barely able to bench 90 pounds. I couldn’t curl more than like 20 pounds. I was out of shape and not anywhere close.
Fast forward about six months and I’ve gotten into a rhythm and found that I love the gym. Yes, it’s hard, but that’s the best part. After this, I decided to make a fitness account on IG. I know, mildly douchey. Still, I proceeded with the account. I met a few nerds who shared similar goals, and a few other guys who started off worse than me and still managed to kill it at the gym. It was truly inspiring to hear their stories. I eventually told my own. Generally, I get laughed at. I kind of did this to be in shape, but mainly I stuck to it because I’m a frugal nerd.
As you can see above, I’m not nearly at the Capt’s level. However, I’m well on my way. Fitness doesn’t have to mean you mindlessly workout until it’s time to go to work or sleep (depending on when you go to the gym). Find yourself a goal that you can be passionate about and that you won’t be willing to quit because the reward is far too great.
About the Creator
Kyle Taylor
Husband and father. Those are the big ones. I have three sons that are my world and a beautiful wife... who’s also my world.
Keep reading
More stories from writers in Longevity and other communities.
Day 4 of Quitting
If this is how sobriety feels, maybe it’s better to go through life a little buzzed… this, along with other hits like, I want to kill myself, I wish I was dead, and I’m going to throw myself off a bridge have been the only thoughts on rotation these past few days. I promise myself that if, in a month, I still feel like this (‘this’ meaning despondent, full of rage, and simultaneously numb) I can go back to smoking. Until mid-February though? Nicotine is off the table.
By sleepy drafts6 days ago in Longevity
The Return of the Aircraft Carrier Truman Is Being Seen as a Snub to the Navy in the War of the Future
The return of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman to active deployment has sparked debate far beyond naval circles. While some see it as a show of enduring American naval power, others interpret the move as a symbolic snub—particularly in the context of how modern warfare is rapidly evolving. In an era dominated by drones, cyber warfare, hypersonic missiles, and artificial intelligence, the decision to once again lean heavily on a traditional aircraft carrier has raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Navy is preparing for the wars of tomorrow or clinging to the strategies of yesterday. A Floating Symbol of 20th-Century Power For decades, aircraft carriers have been the ultimate symbol of U.S. military dominance. These massive floating airbases project power thousands of miles from American shores and allow the U.S. to strike almost anywhere in the world. The Truman, like other Nimitz-class carriers, represents this legacy—housing nearly 5,000 sailors, dozens of fighter jets, and unmatched logistical capability. However, critics argue that what once made carriers indispensable now makes them vulnerable. Their sheer size, cost, and visibility turn them into high-value targets in a battlefield increasingly defined by precision strikes and long-range weapons. The “War of the Future” Looks Very Different Modern conflict is no longer limited to sea, land, and air. Cyber attacks can cripple infrastructure without a single shot fired. Drones can swarm targets at a fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. Hypersonic missiles can reach targets faster than current defenses can respond. In this context, sending a massive carrier strike group into contested waters can appear less like a strategic necessity and more like a risky gamble. Critics argue that the return of the Truman reflects an outdated mindset—one that prioritizes visible force projection over adaptability and technological evolution. A Snub to Naval Innovation? Many analysts and serving officers believe the Navy’s future lies in distributed lethality—smaller, more agile platforms networked together, harder to detect and cheaper to replace. Unmanned surface vessels, autonomous submarines, and land-based missile systems are increasingly viewed as the backbone of next-generation naval warfare. Against this backdrop, recommitting to a traditional carrier is seen by some as sidelining innovation. It sends a message that, despite years of discussion about transformation, the Navy still defaults to familiar tools when tensions rise. This perception has led to frustration among those advocating for faster modernization. They argue that resources devoted to maintaining and protecting carriers like the Truman could instead accelerate investment in emerging technologies that are more relevant to future conflicts. The Strategic Signal to Allies and Rivals Supporters of the decision counter that the Truman’s return is not about nostalgia—it’s about deterrence. Aircraft carriers remain powerful political tools. Their presence reassures allies, signals commitment, and demonstrates readiness in a way few other assets can. Yet even here, the message is mixed. To technologically advanced rivals, the deployment may signal predictability rather than strength. Adversaries have spent years developing strategies specifically designed to neutralize carriers, including anti-ship ballistic missiles and advanced surveillance systems. Cost Versus Capability The financial reality cannot be ignored. A single carrier strike group costs billions of dollars to build, maintain, and operate. In contrast, drone fleets and missile systems can be produced and deployed at a much lower cost, often with greater strategic flexibility. Critics argue that continuing to rely on carriers drains resources from areas where the Navy needs to grow most urgently. In a future conflict defined by speed, dispersion, and digital dominance, the cost-benefit equation of aircraft carriers looks increasingly questionable. Why the Carrier Still Matters—For Now Despite the criticism, aircraft carriers are not obsolete—yet. They remain unmatched in their ability to sustain prolonged air operations without relying on foreign bases. In regions where access is limited or politically sensitive, carriers still provide options no other platform can. The real issue, many experts say, is not the existence of carriers like the Truman, but over-reliance on them. Using them as one component of a broader, more flexible strategy may still make sense. Treating them as the centerpiece of future war planning may not. A Turning Point for Naval Strategy The return of the USS Harry S. Truman highlights a deeper tension within modern military thinking. It represents a crossroads between tradition and transformation, between proven power and emerging threats. Whether history views this moment as a wise assertion of strength or a missed opportunity for innovation will depend on what comes next. If the Navy pairs legacy platforms with bold technological change, the carrier’s return may be justified. If not, it risks becoming a powerful symbol—not of dominance, but of reluctance to adapt in a rapidly changing world.
By Fiazahmedbrohi a day ago in Longevity
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.