Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Dreck the Fat **** wrote:
...
My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them
as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do
eat more during mealtimes

That's because you lack discipline, fatso.

I've also heard that smoking can help people to be
thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy)

I'm hoping the quit will make me more active

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what
you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of
the lads?

and
feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never
really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before.

No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless.

...
My mum's a pink puffer :-(

You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater.

Dawn could eat a Tailor wrote:
...
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. 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 get positively vehement in defending their ignorance.

How about stating your actual point(s) of disagreement with a bit of specificity
rather than making a conceited generalization about how superior you think you
really are?

It's why I love Usenet so very, very much.

Not nearly as much as you like HoHos.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:35:04 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Dreck the Fat **** wrote:
...
My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them
as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do
eat more during mealtimes

That's because you lack discipline, fatso.

I've incredible discipline, and my smoking quit goes
some way in demonstrating that.

I've also heard that smoking can help people to be
thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy)

I'm hoping the quit will make me more active

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what
you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of
the lads?

Yes. I live in a wheelchair during the day.

and
feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never
really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before.

No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless.

...
My mum's a pink puffer :-(

You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater.

You should 've paid more attention to Pearl's message
to you this afternoon before making a fool of yourself
here. Why do attack disabled people like myself?

""Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03

"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03

"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03

"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03

What a hypocrite."
[end]

Rubystars wrote:
...
I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. 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.

Were they working out, and had they always been active?

It could have been a gland problem that ran
in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues.

Some thyroid issues are organic (even genetic), but it's often a case of a gland
responding to diet and exercise factors of an individual.
Regular exercise and a high-fiber diet can help maintain thyroid
function and prevent constipation.
http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/h/hypothyroidism.htm

Studies have also shown that more intense exercise relates to greater
improvement in thyroid function than moderate exercise.

...
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.

It fluctuates depending on age, physical activity level, etc. Someone who
becomes more active later in life may have a higher BMR than when he or she was
a sedentary young person. Again, exercise is the key to improving BMR and
keeping weight off.

...

Dawn Taylor wrote:
...
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

Apparently, neither do you -- at least its complete insignificance in choosing
healthy foods. Why don't you eat carrots or drink orange juice? "Oh, because
they cause an insulin spike." Well so does your cottage cheese, chubby. So does
that butter-fried steak with melted cheese. So do your fried pork skins.

Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume
way too many calories.

or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic
people metabolize carbohydrates,

Most people who use GI to determine what they can or cannot eat are not diabetic
or anywhere near being insulin resistant. GI is one of the least scientific
"tools" developed. Which baseline or list are you using anyway?

...[A]s aforementioned, the GI of any given food can vary dramatically
depending on its country of origin. Therefore, unless you check the
specific origin and brand of all the foods you eat, you may not always
have an accurate idea of their glycemic indexes.

...[A]ccording to the American Diabetes Association (ADA), differences
in the GI ratings of many foods are less accurate when they are eaten in
conjunction with other foods at mealtimes. For example, jam has a high
GI rating, but when eaten with whole-wheat bread, the combination is
digested more slowly and should therefore have a lower GI rating.

...[H]igh-fat products may score low on the GI. Since fat slows
digestion, foods like chocolate, sausages and peanuts get a low GI
score. For example, the GI rating of some candy bars are 50% lower than
that of a steamed potato. Does that mean we should opt to eat a
chocolate bar over a potato? Definitely not. Relying exclusively on GI
ratings can lead to bad diet decisions and even increase your risk of
obesity-related diseases like heart attacks and strokes.
http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcou...ting_well.html

Again, you're *not* fat because you ate too many carrots. Take your junky
pseudoscience elsewhere.

it patently obvious that you have no
clue what you're talking about.

That applies to you, tubby.

A calorie is not a calorie across the board for everyone.

According to whom?

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.

He's right about your being fat.

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.

No, he did that for continuity.

...

Rubystars wrote:
...
I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
"reflexology" for weight loss.

Sure enough, I found a site:
http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...eflexology.htm

More BS:
http://www.bodyandhealthessentials.c...m_slippers.htm

"Using reflexology science, magnets, and laws of gravity to get slim!"

The site also claims:
"What if I told you that there is a way to lose weight without joining a gym
or changing your eating habits? Get Slim Slippers are the way, to be worn
daily for a short period of time."

and then there's this stupid site:
http://www.erbook.net/lose_weight_wi... r_surgery.htm

it has this stupid paragraph in it:

"Perhaps you're skeptical, and scoff at the notion that it is possible to
lose weight without dieting, drugs, herbs, exercise, or surgery. My
response? We live in a world in which scientific breakthroughs are common.
People who resolutely adhere to the old dogma are sometimes nominated for
membership in the Flat Earth Society. However, it is natural to question the
validity of weight loss claims because most weight loss "breakthroughs" are
overhyped nonsense. This is different. It works."

ALL of them claim "This is different. It works."

Please stop giving Lesley more kooky sites to link.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 17:02:52 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Dawn Taylor wrote:
...
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

Apparently, neither do you -- at least its complete insignificance in
choosing healthy foods. Why don't you eat carrots or drink orange juice?
"Oh, because they cause an insulin spike." Well so does your cottage
cheese, chubby. So does that butter-fried steak with melted cheese. So
do your fried pork skins.

Actually, butter-fried steak with melted cheese would not cause much of an
insulin increase, as insulin is primarily caused by carbs. I don't eat
carrots because they make my stomach upset and juices are the spawn of
Satan -- there is nothing whatsoever good about juices. Eat fruit.

Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
much orange juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and
because you consume way too many calories.

or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic
people metabolize carbohydrates,

Most people who use GI to determine what they can or cannot eat are not
diabetic or anywhere near being insulin resistant. GI is one of the
least scientific "tools" developed. Which baseline or list are you using
anyway?

What does GI have to do with insulin resistance? One becomes insulin
resistant for a variety of reasons, including the low fat, high carb diet
I was on for many years. According to GI, al dente pasta has a low GI,
but it causes my blood sugar to go through the roof. So does grapefruit,
another supposedly low GI. These are totally separate things. Insulin
resistance is problematic, and it has nothing to do with GI.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume
way too many calories.


That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

That question has been long answered:

lack of discipline
lack of self respect
immaturity


For example, I am a slim person at normal weight (I am saying so just
so that you would not dismiss what I say as self excuses of a fat
person). I used to be fat but lost weight by eating less and eating
better and exercising.

No great mystery to it, is there?


And yet, I am an overeater and have to apply a lot of efforts to not
overeat. I limit my portions, even though at each meal I would like to
eat more, I eat a lot of low calorie vegetables, keep down carbs, do
not eat sugar etc.

That's why I call myself a "naturally fat" person.

There is no particular emotional reason for my overeating, and I am
sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not
working right in my body.

Whereas some people eat all they want, but fortunately they do not
want all that much.

So, saying that the only difference between fat people and slim people
is "gluttony"and immorality is stupid and inhelpful in really
understanding anything.

I do realize that you get off by thinking that you are upsetting fat
people, so the complexity of what I say may be lost on you, but
hopefully some other people can identify with what I am describing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

OMG I am so sick of this thread! But who is worse? The trolls, or our
group members who keep answering them?

People - ignore them. *Please*.


Regards,

Deb
260/213.5/135

pearl cut-n-pasted:
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

snip nothing of merit