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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:57:11 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Head writes: Hey, I'm eating just about equal to my metabolism, and cranking in maybe 5000 calories a week of exercise. Can _you_ match that? At times I've done more than that _per day_. I've never done that as just exercise. Don't know how any past work situations have measured against that. But it's not what you do for a month, it's what you do for a lifetime. Yep. Dave Head |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On 11 Mar 2006 14:55:31 -0800, "TenKBabe" wrote:
Dave Head wrote: Hey, I'm eating just about equal to my metabolism, and cranking in maybe 5000 calories a week of exercise. Can _you_ match that? Hey Dave, if you are the muscle-bound freak you say you are, how's about posting a photo. Well, I've been thinking of taking such a photo for quite some time. Almost got it done last Tuesday night - my personal trainer wanted to take pictures of me, too, and several other of her students, but she was sick that night and didn't show up. I've probably only got muscles to justify maybe 200 lbs. 20 lbs or so _is_ fat that I want to get rid of - either exercise down to 200 lbs of all-muscle, or exercise and build enough muscle so I'm 220 and all muscle. Either way would be fine with me. Then we can put this BMI thing to rest. I run from 70 to 90 miles per week, so yes I can match that and then some. I guess you can. Good for you. I'm doubting _you_ have much of a weight problem... G Dave Head tkb. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:00:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Head writes: The charts are broken, espcially after this latest release of BMI ... Let me guess: A secret conspiracy of corporate fast-food peddlers has adulterated the BMI tables! I've heard opinions of these tables on the tube when health people speak of them. The BMI tables are fairly universally discounted as being unrealistic, espcially if someone is actually working at strength training. Naw, it might be a little overweight. It's more than a little overweight. Eat fewer peanuts in the car--in fact, stop driving a car, and walk. It would take me 4 hours to walk to work, and 4 hours to walk home. Nope, ain't happenin'. I think I can justify about 200 of it - my personal trainer says I could lose 20... which I'm going to do, and have a good time doing it. Right. Real Soon Now. I think it will take 12 to 18 months, if I lose it at all. It may turn out that I build enough additional muscle such that I purge all my excess fat and am still 220 lbs. OK with me if it goes that way, too. I'm just not happy with having the country get fatter and fatter, simply because some corporations want to make more money. You just want to avoid responsibility for your own obesity. Nobody is fooled, especially here. 3 big ones. Never again. A diet is something you adopt for life, not something you do temporarily. Yep. 2 Eat just one, then. Why would I do that? These are meals, not snacks. A 500 calorie meal is still too small, let alone a 250 calorie meal. Dave Head |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote:
Dave Head wrote: I'm just not happy with having the country get fatter and fatter, simply because some corporations want to make more money. ALL corporations want to make more money. They do that by offering a product that other people want to buy. The basic premise of capitalism is that they are free to offer it and you are free to refuse it. Yes, and I refuse out-sized bags of peanuts. I buy the Cokes and Pepsis since I only buy diet soft drinks, so size doesn't matter, but would rather have 12 oz even then, as 20 oz is just too much. People do not get fat because they can only buy 1400 calorie burgers. They get fat because they EAT 1400 calorie burgers. This is not a fault of the supply chain: you could preplan your meals so that you aren't forced to buy convenience foods. You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food. In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware, and then having to deal with that. You have your head so far up your ass about whose to blame for why you're fat that I doubt you'll be able to get the weight off, much less keep it off. Oh, here we go with the insults already. Is it just usenet, or what? DPH Dally 244/168/155 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:11:51 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Head writes: Don't need to - I'm doing quite nicely eating 2. as long as I stay at or under my metabolism of about 2400 calories... everything is cool. So how did you get to 220 lbs? Oooh, now there's a story. In 2004 I completed an intense diet and achieved 183 lbs. Not too bad. But, I didn't sustain it - I mis-estimated my metabolism, and was eating at about a 2400 calorie a day rate when I was only burning at about an 1800 calorie a day rate. The diet had been intense, and a lot of the weight I lost was muscle. The missing muscle accounted for the slowdown in metabolism. I gained about 1 lb a month, when I finally figured out, at 189 lbs, that I was unlikely to sustain that lower weight without walking around starving all the time. The local health club manager repeated to me the internet myth of each pound of muscle burning 30 - 40 calories a day. I thought "cool" and set out to increase my muscle mass. This worked. I gained about 30 lbs of muscle over a year. Unfortunately, when I was at the end of my diet, the one before starting the weight training, I _still_ had a considerable amount of fat. That stayed with me. I picked up some extra fat during that progression from 183 to 189, before I started the wieght training. Last summer I did a new exercise with my personal trainer - it was a sidestep with elastic resistace, that just didn't agree with me at all. I had a sensitivity to this in my left hip,which had been abused years earlier by excessive bowling practice which I was _also_ using as a way to burn fat - during the early 90s. I couldn't exercise to the level I wanted to because of the pain. At the same time, I also injured my left shoulder. That kept me from doing all the weight training I wanted to, again because of the pain. So, I didn't get to the gym as much, and gained some more fat - not too much, but I have about 20 lbs more than I should, according to my personal trainer. I think that's about right. I should be 200 instead of 220. But I like 'em... now _this_ _is_ about me - having a good time without feeling hungry any time. You don't need to snack to avoid feeling hungry. That actually wasn't a snack. It was breakfast. I could do that, but then I'd be hungry... that is sooo unpleasant. It must be even more unpleasant than diabetes and congestive heart failure, if you continue to avoid it. Hey, mostly I don't overeat anyway. If you overeat even occasionally, you'll still get fat. Not if you kill it on the cross trainer... 2400 calories is a lotta food - I don't usually go much over that. But lately I've been knocking down that 2400 to about 1000 - 1200 with 1200 - 1400 calories of exercise. Fat _does_ disappear when you're doing that. It's hard to get 1400 kcal of exercise. That's nearly five hours of walking. That's the beauty of training machines. Cross-trainers where you can set the resistance allows for 1000 calories in an hour. The other 400 calories comes from 1 1/2 hrs of weight training. There are people that can eat the statue of liberty done in chocolate and not get fat... my brother was one of 'em. There isn't anyone who can overeat and remain thin. People who are not fat are people who do not overeat. Not necessarily true. There are people that _desire_ to gain weight, eat like a lumberjack... and still don't gain weight. There are also people that have extremely active jobs - lumberjacks, construction workers (some of 'em that aren't sitting down operating cranes). The vast majority of Americans do not have such jobs, and yet many are still thin. Yep. See above. Some of 'em are just naturally on the side of not wanting much food, and not getting hungry with the frequency and intensity of other. Some are not addicted to overeating, that's true. But addiction is psychological and can be overcome. Funny - every time I've attempted to _under_ eat, as in dieting, I was always extremely hungry. I've never been able to overcome that. It ain't psychological, either - its physiological. Dave Head |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:53:26 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:
I agree that I would prefer companies to sell true one-serving, smaller package size of things. When I visited the U.S. I was dismayed by the overly large packages of snacks containing too many calories. So what I did was pass up on them. Yep - that's the way I handle 'em. I can understand the frustration, but I don't see as any sort of solution government mandated single-serving food packages. That seems like too much government intervention in the marketplace. It seems doomed to failure, confusion, high prices, etc. Agree. I hate legisative solutions. Still, there needs to be some kind of real incentive to have smaller packages of things available. It would be better to just convince companies that there was *demand* for such things. If there was demand they would make the stuff, like Nabisco does with those "100 calorie snack packs" of things like wheat things and so on. Nabisco is going to get some of my money, for sure. I'm going to look for these 100 calorie packs. Dave Head doug On 3/11/06 10:32 PM, in article , "Dave Head" wrote: Casino gambling is wildly popular among a significant percetage of the population - IOW, there is "demand" for it - but many think it a bad thing and therefore there are laws against it most places. So, just because there is a demand for something, does that mean its a good thing? Are those that offer something that is not necessarily in the best interested of the customer to be cosidered blameless while America largely loses a battle with a deadly health menace? Its like cars - the law doesn't say you can't build a big one, it just says you have to build some small ones so your Corprate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is 28 mpg (or whatever it is now.) Why? Because its good for the nation. Just out of "doing the right thing", the food sellers _ought_ to offer _reasonable_ sized packages of their products. If Joe Jellybelly wants to buy a 6 oz, 960 calorie bag of peanuts, that's fine, but I want to buy a 1 3/4 oz bag or 2.5 oz bag, and believe it is a bad thing for the food sellers not to offer it just to sell more product without regard to the health impact on the population. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
Dave Head wrote:
People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20 oz bottles. This really highlights your brain damage. 1. Drink water. OR 2. Buy 2 liter bottles of soda in the grocery store and refrigerate it and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR 3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR 4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car. You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of ****tards without survival skills - big whoop. You are CHOOSING to be a non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too. Dally |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
Dave Head wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote: You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food. In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware, and then having to deal with that. I disagree on every level. I plan, purchase and pack healthier meals. My meals have better macronutrient ratios, nutrients, less packaging, cost less money and are better for me. You choose to buy crappy food from bad food purveyors and then blame the corporations. Look in a mirror, dude. Dally |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
In article , Dally
wrote: Dave Head wrote: On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote: You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food. In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware, and then having to deal with that. I disagree on every level. I plan, purchase and pack healthier meals. My meals have better macronutrient ratios, nutrients, less packaging, cost less money and are better for me. You choose to buy crappy food from bad food purveyors and then blame the corporations. Look in a mirror, dude. Dally The jerk is obviously a troll. Don't watse your time. What does he expect us to do? He should take his case the Congress or the food processors. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:50 -0500, Dally wrote:
Dave Head wrote: People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20 oz bottles. This really highlights your brain damage. 1. Drink water. OR 2. Buy 2 liter bottles of soda in the grocery store and refrigerate it and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR 3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR 4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car. You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of ****tards without survival skills - big whoop. You are CHOOSING to be a non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too. Dally No, you haven't been listening. 1) I buy diet - I can have as much as I want. 2) Its about the fat bomb that's been unleashed upon this nation in the pursuit of the almighty buck. The general population is getting much fatter than it ever has been. This sort of marketing is one of the reasons. This nonsense should be opposed. Dave Head |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Personal perspective: new era of consumer protection possible in USA, if legislature acts on aspartame ban, Stephen Fox, 49 citizen comments, Leland Lehrman: Murray 2006.01.21 | Rich Murray | General Discussion | 0 | January 22nd, 2006 04:01 AM |
Corporate Package For Your Staff | T.E.N Tours | General Discussion | 0 | October 19th, 2005 12:47 AM |
Corporate Package For Your Staff | T.E.N Tours | General Discussion | 0 | October 19th, 2005 12:41 AM |