If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"ipse dixit" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:51:51 GMT, "Rubystars" wrote: "ipse dixit" wrote in message snip I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half, well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off. The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard I'll bet! I can't do 1500 kebabs/day. Respect - Wendy. lol (I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc. "growling" - after 2500 kebabs per day? Blimey, so would mine, old girl. Are we talking calories here? Yeah, we're talking calories. but it got a lot easier. I can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk. Maybe. If you don't mind my hypocritical preaching for a minute; dieting is for whimps. I reckon the only way to lose weight is to burn it off with regular exercise. Eat until you're full, but make sure you burn it off afterwards. The diet will look after itself if you work your body hard and regularly. I'm trying to make a lifestyle shift. I don't count calories every day anymore because I got the hang of what it looked/felt like (but I do on some days just so I don't drift too far away from my goal of calories, that would be easy to do). Exercise is more important than food, though. [sorry to hear about your Gran. snip] Thanks. -Rubystars |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "ipse dixit" wrote in message snip I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half, well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off. The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard (I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc. but it got a lot easier. I can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk. An *initial* feeling of fullness has nothing to do with your stomach literally being "full"; it has to do with some of the food you've eaten shutting down the chemical reaction that causes you to feel hungry. WHENVER you eat to the point your stomach feels "full", you've overeaten. I didn't mean full in the sense of feeling my stomach walls stretch. That only happens every once in a great while, like on holidays (and isn't particularly pleasant). I meant full in the sense of feeling satisfied and not hungry anymore. -Rubystars |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:41 GMT, Jonathan Ball
announced in front of God and everybody: Dawn Taylor wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:20:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball announced in front of God and everybody: Sorry. This is simply not true. Foods have known caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical NECESSITY. I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about I do know what I'm talking about. There is no great mystery to weight loss. A cheeseburger of a given size provides the same number of calories to me as it does to you; moving your 120kg laterally for 4 miles on foot - that's called "walking", fatso - burns even *more* calories for you than it does for me (68kg). Well, considering that you apparently have no understanding of the Glycemic Index or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic people metabolize carbohydrates, it patently obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. A calorie is not a calorie across the board for everyone. Stop making excuses for your girth. You are overweight because you won't consume fewer calories than you burn. It's that simple. What ISN'T simple is any explanation for your excuse-making. Some view it as bad character; it might be. Actually, you have absolutely no idea that I'm overweight at all. I never said I was fat -- I said you were wrong. I notice that you added the cross-posts to misc.consumers and alt.support.fat-acceptance *back* after I removed them, so it's also patently obvious that you're trolling. So **** off, idiot. Dawn |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... They could have metabolic problems that cause them to gain even if they eat like a normal person. Some people have a genetic disposition toward being fat that's hard to get past. Sorry. This is simply not true. I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. I don't doubt that two people can have very different *resting* metabolisms. That isn't what we're talking about, or at least shouldn't be. This can be seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though they were all trying very hard. It could have been a gland problem that ran in the family, etc. It's conceivable that some ONE person might have a hormonal issue. That can't possibly explain the terrible incidence of severe, morbid obesity in the U.S. versus, say, continental Europe. The Germans are pretty stout people, but you simply don't see those extremely obese people there that you see in the American "heartland". They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. Foods have known caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. Yes, if people take the effort and time to learn all that (often contradictory) information, to sift the truth out, then they can make an eating/exercise plan that will work for them. There is nothing contradictory in the notion that adding 20-30 minutes of vigorous physical exercise to your daily routine, and cutting your caloric intake by 15-20%, will make you lose weight. It also is absurd to suggest that morbidly obese people aren't aware of the issue. EVERYONE is aware of it, and of the basic commonsense that must be internalized: reduce caloric intake, increase caloric expenditure, lose weight. It really is that simple. Morbid obesity is SOLELY a function of behavior, not family tendencies. Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical NECESSITY. That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so there is a different range available for different people. Also some people don't have any natural mechanisms to help them know what a portion size looks like, so they have to actually learn it before they can control their intake. That is not difficult, provided one REALLY wants to know it. They may not even know they have a problem with portion control until they get really big, Come on, now. They know they have SOME kind of problem when their clothes stop fitting them and their friends begin needling them about packing on a lot of weight. and then they're bombarded with different people trying to take their money away to fix the overweight problem, without fixing the issue that caused it. They may never learn what a regular sized portion is unless they take the time to find out that specific information. That information is readily available. One must WANT to find it and learn from it. It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. It sure is. I just read something about the documentary "Super Size Me" (http://www.supersizeme.com/) The guy ate nothing but McDonald's food for a month in order to make the film, and his rule was that if the counterperson ever asked him did he want to "supersize" something, he had to do it. He gained 25 pounds in ONE MONTH! It took him six months of supervised weight loss to lose 20 pounds, and another NINE MONTHS to lose the final five pounds. The asymmetry between the ease of weight gain and the difficulty of weight loss is NOT a legitimate excuse, however, although lots of seriously obese people try to use it as one. Also, the asymmetry is not some craftily concealed fact that someone "doesn't want you to know". It's very well known. It takes no effort at all to gain, it can take monumental effort to lose. So they spend their money and time on a bunch of fad diets and just get bigger and bigger and in the mean time they never really learn how much they should eat, etc. Again, this information is readily available. One must first want to know. Besides, a lot of people who are big do cut down their intake of food a lot in order to try to be healthier, and it doesn't always work. If you cut your caloric intake to something less than your caloric expenditure, you NECESSARILY will lose weight. Yes, burning more calories than you consume sounds pretty easy, doesn't it? It IS easy. It may not be easy to make it into a large difference, but a small net expenditure is EASY to attain. It's not. It is. In order to do that you have to know how much you can eat, how many calories you can eat and still lose, what are good types of exercise (walking, for example). All of that information is readily available. Some people cut their food intake, but not enough, or are eating smaller portions of high calorie foods, and they are frustrated because they're unsatisified with the portions they eat but still gain weight. I mean, let's say someone ate 2 patio burritos for lunch every day, heated up in the microwave with melted cheese over it. They cut it down to one burrito. DROP THE CHEESE! They still might not lose weight or stop gaining because it may not be enough of a drop in calories/fat intake to help them. This is why it's important to increase caloric expenditure as well. It doesn't take much. A beginner's walking speed is apparently 3.0-3.2 mph (http://www.classicalmusicfitness.com/speed.htm). At 3.0 mph, you'll walk one mile in 20 minutes. For most seriously obese people, those 20 minutes would be the ONLY 20 minutes of additional exercise they get. It isn't a lot, but it's a start. It simply is not a believable excuse that they don't have the 20 minutes to spend. The caloric intake and the caloric expenditure are highly variable, and people who cut their caloric intake but don't lose weight NECESSARILY are still consuming more in calories than they burn. Yes that's true! It's just that it takes effort and research Very, very little. If a person can't find that out in half an hour or less, s/he just doesn't want to know. In 2-3 hours of research, you should have enough information to last a LIFETIME. Since we're talking about something that has virtually an incalculable effect on quality of life AND duration of life, that seems like a pittance of time. to find out how many calories you can consume, what kinds of foods are more bulky but lower in fat and calories, etc. It takes no effort at all to buy what tastes good and eat as much as you want to feel full. So people who don't have the knowledge base to work from are at a disadvantage. The internet can make it a lot easier, but in some ways it may make it more difficult, as there are also a lot of diet scams being promoted over the internet. -Rubystars |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "ipse dixit" wrote in message snip I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half, well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off. The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard (I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc. but it got a lot easier. I can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk. An *initial* feeling of fullness has nothing to do with your stomach literally being "full"; it has to do with some of the food you've eaten shutting down the chemical reaction that causes you to feel hungry. WHENVER you eat to the point your stomach feels "full", you've overeaten. I didn't mean full in the sense of feeling my stomach walls stretch. That only happens every once in a great while, like on holidays (and isn't particularly pleasant). I meant full in the sense of feeling satisfied and not hungry anymore. Because that's from a chemical reaction, it happens within a couple of bites of food. You could feel famished, I mean painfully hungry, but if you ate two ounces of steak, two tablespoons each of cooked rice and cooked peas, four ounces of non-fat milk and 1/4 of an apple, you're not going to feel hungry. Of course, you WILL feel hungry again in 20-30 minutes, but the point is, feeling "full" does not depend in any way on eating a big meal. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "ipse dixit" wrote in message snip I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half, well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off. The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard (I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc. but it got a lot easier. I can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk. An *initial* feeling of fullness has nothing to do with your stomach literally being "full"; it has to do with some of the food you've eaten shutting down the chemical reaction that causes you to feel hungry. WHENVER you eat to the point your stomach feels "full", you've overeaten. I didn't mean full in the sense of feeling my stomach walls stretch. That only happens every once in a great while, like on holidays (and isn't particularly pleasant). I meant full in the sense of feeling satisfied and not hungry anymore. Because that's from a chemical reaction, it happens within a couple of bites of food. You could feel famished, I mean painfully hungry, but if you ate two ounces of steak, two tablespoons each of cooked rice and cooked peas, four ounces of non-fat milk and 1/4 of an apple, you're not going to feel hungry. Of course, you WILL feel hungry again in 20-30 minutes, but the point is, feeling "full" does not depend in any way on eating a big meal. I like to eat enough so I'm not hungry again for the next 3 or 4 hours. I eat small meals every 3-4 hours (surprisingly 1500-1700 calories can accomplish this). I may have to adjust that again when I start working pretty soon, and eat more in the morning so that I won't be hungry till my lunch break. -Rubystars |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Rubystars wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message hlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote in message arthlink.net... Rubystars wrote: "ipse dixit" wrote in message snip I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half, well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off. The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard (I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc. but it got a lot easier. I can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk. An *initial* feeling of fullness has nothing to do with your stomach literally being "full"; it has to do with some of the food you've eaten shutting down the chemical reaction that causes you to feel hungry. WHENVER you eat to the point your stomach feels "full", you've overeaten. I didn't mean full in the sense of feeling my stomach walls stretch. That only happens every once in a great while, like on holidays (and isn't particularly pleasant). I meant full in the sense of feeling satisfied and not hungry anymore. Because that's from a chemical reaction, it happens within a couple of bites of food. You could feel famished, I mean painfully hungry, but if you ate two ounces of steak, two tablespoons each of cooked rice and cooked peas, four ounces of non-fat milk and 1/4 of an apple, you're not going to feel hungry. Of course, you WILL feel hungry again in 20-30 minutes, but the point is, feeling "full" does not depend in any way on eating a big meal. I like to eat enough so I'm not hungry again for the next 3 or 4 hours. Sure, and I wasn't suggesting that you should eat the absurdly small "meal" I described. I was only trying to make the point that it takes VERY little food to feel no longer hungry. I eat small meals every 3-4 hours (surprisingly 1500-1700 calories can accomplish this). I may have to adjust that again when I start working pretty soon, and eat more in the morning so that I won't be hungry till my lunch break. -Rubystars |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Eva Whitley wrote:
The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden. Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Sure. It just requires that one have even less self-discipline than a fat meat eater. [...] Enroll a Flabby Friend in the Veg Eye Invitational Do you have a chubby chum in need of a refrigerator redux? Click here and we'll rush your big-boned buddy a free Veg Pledge pack chock full of recipes and coupons. Isn't fat ... er ... that ... what friends are for? Uh, no, PETA, friends are for loving you unconditionally Bull****. The ONLY people entitled to unconditional love are children, because they had no choice in their own creation, and children need parental love in order to develop as healthy people. Friends are people you CHOOSE to love or like, based on qualities they possess, or at least possessed at the time you chose to befriend them. Friendship is not unconditional, and should never be regarded as such. and helping you hide bodies of annoying do-gooders. Didn't anyone tell you that? You have much to learn. I doubt you'll get there. And again with the fake "obesity epidemic." I'm surprised they didn't trot out that fake "300,000 deaths a year from obesity" statistic. I don't know of anyone claiming that obesity directly causes any number of deaths. Obesity causes and/or exacerbates conditions that are known to lead to death. It's worth noting, though, that much as with smoking, obesity probably does NOT lead to increased health care expenditure. The reason: obesity DOES lead to greatly increased mortality, so that fat people die before they begin to consume much in the way of medical care. And if they're ****ing *me* off, with all the tofu in my refrigerator (I have a vegetarian in the house and I skip eating meat several times a week), they're probably ****ing off a lot of other people. I'm surprised they didn't target Penn Gillette. On a recent episode of Penn & Teller's BULL****, they came up with proof of hypocrisy, following the paper trail to the door of the commercial refrigerator PETA uses to store the animal bodies they kill. Yes, good old PETA kills animals. I bet folks that gave $$ to PETA are surprised it was used to kill animals. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jonathan Ball wrote:
Dawn Taylor wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:09:41 GMT, Jonathan Ball announced in front of God and everybody: Dawn Taylor wrote: On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:20:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball announced in front of God and everybody: Sorry. This is simply not true. Foods have known caloric values. Various forms of exercise and activity burn up fairly well known amounts of calories. Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical NECESSITY. I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about I do know what I'm talking about. There is no great mystery to weight loss. A cheeseburger of a given size provides the same number of calories to me as it does to you; moving your 120kg laterally for 4 miles on foot - that's called "walking", fatso - burns even *more* calories for you than it does for me (68kg). Well, considering that you apparently have no understanding of the Glycemic Index or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic people metabolize carbohydrates Irrelevant, and wrong. Most obese people are not diabetic...yet. You haven't refuted my point: if you expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight. A calorie is not a calorie across the board for everyone. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. "Calorie" is an OBJECTIVE unit of energy. If there is one chocolate eclair on a table in front of us, and some referee randomly picks you or me to eat the eclair, it provides the same number of calories to you as it would to me. You'll ALWAYS get the eclair, of course: you'd kill to get that eclair. Stop making excuses for your girth. You are overweight because you won't consume fewer calories than you burn. It's that simple. What ISN'T simple is any explanation for your excuse-making. Some view it as bad character; it might be. Actually, you have absolutely no idea that I'm overweight at all. I have a pretty good idea. I notice that you added the cross-posts to misc.consumers and alt.support.fat-acceptance *back* after I removed them, so it's also patently obvious that you're trolling. And I'll do it AGAIN, fatso. I was replying to a post that ALREADY had them in the headers. If I had wanted them out, I'd have taken them out. So **** off, idiot. Go get your boyfriend or your dog to **** the folds. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus15189 wrote:
In article , Roger Zoul wrote: Ignoramus15189 wrote: :: I enjoy the thought of animals being murdered and exploited for my :: eating pleasure. I am the king of animal world, after all! That's just weird..... I simply like annoying vegetarians, I used to date one were you the dumper or dumpee??? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
secret EXHIBITION PICs Big Brother 2985 | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | April 27th, 2004 10:36 PM |
Ham~n~Cheese Omelet Roll | Beemie | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | December 23rd, 2003 02:31 PM |
Decent hamburger roll | Lee B | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 25th, 2003 03:01 PM |
Huge Radio Roll Out...for CORTISLIM -- any experience with it ? | Morehits4u | General Discussion | 3 | November 23rd, 2003 06:35 PM |
Dry and red eyes -- suggestions? | Kramer | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | October 18th, 2003 01:14 PM |