The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he=20
http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano=20
Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden.

Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they know=20
any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...

Here's part of what they have to say:

> These lucky stars will be receiving PETA's "Veg Eye" makeover kit,
> including copies of PETA's vegetarian starter kit, which is
> chock-full of easy tips on how to switch from meaty to meatless; The
> PETA Celebrity Cookbook, which makes vegetarian cooking super simple;
> and samples of delicious, low-fat vegetarian food, including "fib
> ribs," "fakin' bacon," and Tofurky.
>=20
> Why is PETA hoping to discourage husky hunks from hankering after
> hamburgers? The standard American diet of meat, dairy products, and
> eggs =97 all of which are packed with cholesterol and saturated fat =97
> has produced a nation that's bulging at the seams. An alarming report
> in the October 16 edition of The Washington Post concerning a
> comprehensive clinical study of obesity referred to America's
> "obesity epidemic" and cited a four-fold increase in severe obesity
> since 1986.
>=20
> "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cured ham," says PETA's
> Veg Eye guy, Bruce Friedrich. "It takes a big man to admit that he
> needs to be a thinner man, and going vegetarian is one of the
> easiest, most healthful ways to stay slim."
>=20
> 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 and helping you=20
hide bodies of annoying do-gooders. Didn't anyone tell you that?

And again with the fake "obesity epidemic." I'm surprised they didn't=20
trot out that fake "300,000 deaths a year from obesity" statistic.

And if they're ****ing *me* off, with all the tofu in my refrigerator (I=20
have a vegetarian in the house and I skip eating meat several times a=20
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=20
Penn & Teller's BULLSHIT, they came up with proof of hypocrisy,=20
following the paper trail to the door of the commercial refrigerator=20
PETA uses to store the animal bodies they kill. Yes, good old PETA kills=20
animals. I bet folks that gave $$ to PETA are surprised it was used to=20
kill animals.
--=20
I'm Eva Whitley and I approved this message.

On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
"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. Don't they know
> any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...

I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I
*gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
a lacto-vegetarian diet.

Maybe it's harder to gain weight if you eliminate absolutely all animal
products including products that are derived from animals, like butter and
milk and cheese...

But if you include those it is easy to get and remain obese and be a
vegetarian.

doug

"Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
> "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. Don't they know
> > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
>
> I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal.
I
> *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
especially
> a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>
> Maybe it's harder to gain weight if you eliminate absolutely all animal
> products including products that are derived from animals, like butter and
> milk and cheese...
>
> But if you include those it is easy to get and remain obese and be a
> vegetarian.
>
> doug

Believe it or not even though they have a lot of fiber (which helps) beans
have a lot of calories too.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message m...
>
> "Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
> > "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. Don't they know
> > > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
> >
> > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal.
> I
> > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
> > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
> >
> > Maybe it's harder to gain weight if you eliminate absolutely all animal
> > products including products that are derived from animals, like butter and
> > milk and cheese...
> >
> > But if you include those it is easy to get and remain obese and be a
> > vegetarian.
> >
> > doug
>
> Believe it or not even though they have a lot of fiber (which helps) beans
> have a lot of calories too.

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524

See also;
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

"Eva Whitley" > wrote in message
...
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.

i expect nothing less from that group!

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.....

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> 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.....

He probably just posted that to get reactions, but sadly there really are
people who get almost religiously worked up over being "king" etc.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ignoramus15189 wrote:
<snip>
>
>
None more than ~~jonnie~~, But he *is* king of the world.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 10 May 2004 08:47:43 -0500, "rosie"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Eva Whitley" > wrote in message
. ..
>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.
>
>i expect nothing less from that group!
>
You know it is a forger and still you reply as though the forged
person wrote it? What garbage dump do you live under. . . really???

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQKAQiekoPZAZfLgsEQIMFACfbRzy/bM2gT0Gf7XJxkJvwO2t9JYAoNYj
NWHFN6mPYu3/oElYuZdyMYg1
=+70s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

PETA are ****tards.

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. Don't they know
> any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
>
> Here's part of what they have to say:
>
>
>>These lucky stars will be receiving PETA's "Veg Eye" makeover kit,
>>including copies of PETA's vegetarian starter kit, which is
>>chock-full of easy tips on how to switch from meaty to meatless; The
>>PETA Celebrity Cookbook, which makes vegetarian cooking super simple;

I second PETA ****tards!
"> PETA are ****tards.
>
> 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. Don't they know
> > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
> >
> > Here's part of what they have to say:
> >
> >
> >>These lucky stars will be receiving PETA's "Veg Eye" makeover kit,
> >>including copies of PETA's vegetarian starter kit, which is
> >>chock-full of easy tips on how to switch from meaty to meatless; The
> >>PETA Celebrity Cookbook, which makes vegetarian cooking super simple;
>

Hello Doug!

Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide
information for you just in case you might find it helpful...

> I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I
> *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
> a lacto-vegetarian diet.

This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal
vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult
to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really
know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation
as to why you gained weight. Let me explain...

What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric
intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight? Would you
believe me?? Probably not, but virtually every nutritionist would be
on my side. (OK, lets leave the doctors out of this one only because
I have found that about 60% of them don't have a clue about basic
nutrition)

For most people, including vegetarians, the real culprit to gaining
weight is not due to how many calories they eat, but rather the types
of foods that they eat, and how they eat them. To save time in this
forum, lets just get to the core of the matter. What makes most
people gain weight is due to what nutritionists call the "see saw
effect". Let me explain the process:

Why most people gain weight?
=======================================
A) You get hungry and eat something of high GI food. Mmmm... Candy
bar and Coke is yummy!!... :-)
<http://www.gisymbol.com.au/PDF/BackgroundInfoGI.PDF>

B) Next, in under 5 mins, this food that was ingested is immediately
absorbed into your blood stream which causes a massive spike in your
bodies blood glucose levels.

C) After about another 15 mins, your pancreas notices the rising blood
glucose levels, and releases a massive amount of insulin which is
required to allow the body to "use" this new found energy source.

D) Because your insulin levels rise so fast in the bloodstream, (ie.
More energy than the body needs), your fat cells start gobbling up all
the extra, and you would be amazed at how fast these little critters
can do this!!(ie. Normally in less than 45 mins)

E) Next, because of these seemingly "greedy little fat cells", blood
sugar levels drop rapidly leaving the rest of the body without much
energy left, making you feeling tired and sleepy... Nap time anyone??

F) Finally, because blood sugar levels dropped so low in such a short
period of time, your body does not know what is going on and goes into
"panic mode" thereby sending signals to the brain to make you hungry
again. (ie. This starts this vicious cycle all over again)
=======================================

Next Question: Why do we love high GI foods so much?
=======================================
To answer this question, one must appreciate how incredibly smart our
bodies are. In some instances, people will eat allot of high GI foods
just because they are the quickest/easiest foods to find or they do
not know any better. For many people, though, we seem to "crave" high
GI foods…

Have you ever wondered why when that "special someone" broke your
heart, or maybe that person driving in the car next to you made you
feel really stupid, why your instinctly go home and start eating that
big bowl of ice cream? Well, I promise you that you would be very
surprised by the answer!

In your brain there exists two master chemicals. The first is called
"dopamine". The other is called "serotonin". These two brain
chemicals influence most everything that we do. For the first being
dopamine, it is used for excitement and concentration. In fact, a
dopamine release is the whole reason why people drink their coffee in
the morning! Serotonin, on the other hand, is used for that overall
"feel good awareness", which most people call the "after glow"
chemical. Reduced levels in serotonin will cause depression, fatigue,
insomnia, etc.

Now, where am I going with this?? Well, when your body is influenced
by a period of onset depression, which for many people is
unfortunately an almost daily occurrence, your body attempts to
"treat" itself. Somehow, throughout time, our bodies have learned
that by ingesting large amounts of high GI foods, that it will raise
serotonin levels in the brain an make you feel better. (ie. Reduces
depression symptoms) As with most people that are "their own
doctors", even though your body has good intent overall, its reckless
behavior does more harm than good...
=======================================

OK. They what diet is GUARANTEED to Work?
=======================================
Because of the greedy nature of fat cells, any diet that limits
insulin releases to a minimum in the body will basically stop fat
storage all together. Think about it this way, if there is very
little amounts of insulin flowing through the body at any one given
time, your muscles will take up all of the glucose and leave your fat
cells empty handed!! Now, if only we could do this with governments
and politicians!! :-)

The way to do this is to always eat low GI foods and stay away from
high GI foods. Low GI foods are any food that requires the body to
work very hard (ie. Extract Glucose Slowly) to get its energy from.
Foods such as: Oatmeal, Kashi cereal, Skim milk, Brown Rice, 100%
Whole Wheat Breads, Broccoli, or any non-processed Beans are perfect
for keeping insulin levels low. Another side benefit is that by
keeping your insulin levels constant, your energy levels will go thru
the roof!!! Dont believe me?? Well, it is 12:43am and I got up this
morning at 4:30am and Im still going strong!! :-)

Another trick that you will find incredibly effective is what is
called "diet balancing". Basically this consists of balancing the
types of foods that you eat. For instance, my diet is just a typical
45/35/20. This means that I am ingesting about 45% of my foods from
protein, about 35% from low GI carbohydrates, and about 20% from fat.
By balancing your diet, you will be able to eat a considerable larger
amount of food with negligible fat gains. Does this mean that you
have to count every calorie you eat?? Certainly not, but it just
means that when you are eating a meal, to make sure you always have an
appropriate amount of protein/carbohydrates/fats on the plate before
you start eating!
=======================================

And Finally, Why do people always talk about exercise??
=======================================
As stated above, the human body is an amazing organism. In fact, have
you ever wondered why when you go on a diet you loose weight for about
3 to 5 weeks and then no matter how hard you try you cannot loose
anymore weight?? The answer is actually pretty intriguing.....

Whenever a person goes on a restricted caloric diet, the body at first
sarcomas to the pressure. (ie. It gives up fat). After a given time,
though, the body gets "wise" to what is going on and decides to take
action!! After about 3 to 5 weeks, (ie. It is different from person
to person), the body realizes that it must change a few things or it
will have to give up all of its fat, and I can promise you that it
does not want to do that without a fight!! To stability the situation
because of the reduced calorie diet, the body just chooses to reduce
it metabolic rate. (ie. You have less energy and cannot think as well
as before). By doing this, it allows the body to now function on this
reduced diet and keep the fat is so dearly loves!!

So where does fitness fall into this?? Well, by introducing exercise
into the picture, you effectively stop the body from going into a
reduced metabolic state. By doing this, you will continue to loose
weight throughout the duration of your weight loss diet cycle.

Another side benefit to exercise has to do with weight training. By
lifting heavy amounts of weights in the gym (ie. Think HEAVY weight
and not light weight as it will have very little effect), you
stimulate the body to build more muscle to lift this heavy load. In
turn, having this new muscle requires additional glucose to feed it.
The beauty of this is that by adding muscle, you can eat considerably
more and still loose weight. Dont believe me?? Well, most body
builders (Yes, I am talking about the ones that do NOT use steriods)
that have large amounts of muscle will eat > 5000 calories a day....
For these guys, eating actually is a full time job!! :-)
=======================================

Now that you are equipped with all of the knowledge you need, go forth
Doug and ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS!!! (And also have some fun along the
way.... :-)

I hope this helps!

Jim Carver


Doug Lerner > wrote in message >...
> On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
> "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. Don't they know
> > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
>
> I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I
> *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
> a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>
> Maybe it's harder to gain weight if you eliminate absolutely all animal
> products including products that are derived from animals, like butter and
> milk and cheese...
>
> But if you include those it is easy to get and remain obese and be a
> vegetarian.
>
> doug

"Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
> "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. Don't they know
> > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
>
> I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal.
I
> *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
especially
> a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>
Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or
brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat much"
but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000 cals/day
just to maintain.

"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello Doug!
>
> Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide
> information for you just in case you might find it helpful...
>
> > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
low-cal. I
> > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
especially
> > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>
> This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal
> vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult
> to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really
> know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation
> as to why you gained weight. Let me explain...
>
> What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric
> intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight?

I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving
Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes
into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What
you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes, people
lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also lose
weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also lose
weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:23:39 GMT, "Gooserider"
> announced in front of God and everybody:

>Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream or
>brussels sprouts.

Actually, it does make a difference, depending on the individual.
People who are diabetic and/or insulin resistant have a different
reaction to simple carbohydrates than non-IR people.

Dawn

"pearl" > wrote in message >...


> J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
> this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
> food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
> and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
> vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
> (60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
> a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
> diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
> was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
> higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
> The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
> vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
> omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
> higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
> PMID: 3760524


Typical garbage "study" that doesn't establish any mechanism and
actually doesn't even show a real correlation between "lower weight"
and a certain eating pattern. To show the latter they would have to
rule out the possibility that this isn't merely a genetic effect (i.e.
that not all or most people will have lower weight on this diet).
This point is brought home by the 5.4% vs 19.5% obesity rate cited.
Obesity is highly correlated with hyperinsulinism and carbohydrate
intolerance. Considering that vegetarian diets range from high to
very high in carbs these obesity figures show that a certian
non-random subset of the population is choosing a vegetarian diet.
The most plausible explanation is that this diet agrees with them on a
physical level and not just philosophical. People with
hyperinsulinemia cannot live on such high carb diets.

Also there is an obvious flaw in the definition of lower weight: there
is no distinction made between fat and muscle mass. Vegetarians tend
to have lower muscle mass and muscle density is significantly larger
than fat density.

"Gooserider" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article
er,
> > "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. Don't they
know
> > > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
> >
> > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
low-cal.
> I
> > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
> especially
> > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
> >
> Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream
or
> brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
> weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat
much"
> but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000
cals/day
> just to maintain.

You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might not
eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.

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. 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.

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. The people I
see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people. I
went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet where
you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than 20%
of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight at
all.

Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure
it all out.

Besides, food is only part of the picture. They need to exercise too. If
they tried exercising, they'd burn more calories no matter how much they
ate.

-Rubystars

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:06:21 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:

[..]
>
>You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might not
>eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.
>
>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. 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.

One of my over-eating problems is that it takes me longer
than most to "feel" full-up. I can wolf down three large
meals before I'm ready to leave the table while others just
pick and poke at their plate like sparrows. Also, I like the
taste of food, so why hasn't someone invented something
to spray on my tongue to reduce my taste-appetites?

>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. The people I
>see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people. I
>went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet where
>you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than 20%
>of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight at
>all.

Try packing up the fags. Since quitting at the beginning of
April I've gained a full stone. Oh heck!

"ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:06:21 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:
>
> [..]
> >
> >You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might
not
> >eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.
> >
> >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. 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.
>
> One of my over-eating problems is that it takes me longer
> than most to "feel" full-up. I can wolf down three large
> meals before I'm ready to leave the table while others just
> pick and poke at their plate like sparrows. Also, I like the
> taste of food, so why hasn't someone invented something
> to spray on my tongue to reduce my taste-appetites?

I understand what you mean.

> >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. The people I
> >see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people.
I
> >went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet
where
> >you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than
20%
> >of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight
at
> >all.
>
> Try packing up the fags. Since quitting at the beginning of
> April I've gained a full stone. Oh heck!

That happens to a lot of people who quit, because the replace one habit with
the other supposedly. I've also heard that smoking can help people to be
thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy) but the other bad effects like
stained teeth, etc. wouldn't be worth it to me, especially after seeing my
grandmother suffering from emphysema after a lifetime of smoking Marlboros.

I don't know how she breathed at all, to tell the truth. She had symptoms
even in clear air, and she smoked so much in her tiny apartment that when I
went in there, I felt like *my* lungs were full of pea soup. I got sick
afterward too..

-Rubystars

ipse dixit wrote:
<...>
> One of my over-eating problems

How many do you have, fatso?

> is that it takes me longer
> than most to "feel" full-up. I can wolf down three large
> meals before I'm ready to leave the table while others just
> pick and poke at their plate like sparrows.

You're a self-indulgent, self-crippled slob whose god is his own belly. Most
veg-ns lose weight. You're still growing immensely. Your gluttony is probably
related to your low self-esteem which stems from your dole-scrounging.

> Also, I like the
> taste of food, so why hasn't someone invented something
> to spray on my tongue to reduce my taste-appetites?

Try some self-control and responsibility, tubby.

>>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. The people I
>>see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people. I
>>went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet where
>>you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than 20%
>>of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight at
>>all.
>
> Try packing up the fags. Since quitting at the beginning of
> April I've gained a full stone. Oh heck!

As I noted above, you thoroughly lack self-control. If it's not cigarettes, it's
food. If it's not food, you'll be downloading pornos all day like you used to.
BTW, did you ever tell Belinda that you wank on her computer?

On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:30:46 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:06:21 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>> [..]
>> >
>> >You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons
>> > why a 300 lb person might not eat much but still
>> > maintain or even gain weight.
>> >
>> >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. 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.
>>
>> One of my over-eating problems is that it takes me longer
>> than most to "feel" full-up. I can wolf down three large
>> meals before I'm ready to leave the table while others just
>> pick and poke at their plate like sparrows. Also, I like the
>> taste of food, so why hasn't someone invented something
>> to spray on my tongue to reduce my taste-appetites?
>
>I understand what you mean.

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.


>> >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. The people I see buying
>> >low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat
>> >people.I went through a phase where I was trying
>> >that "Stop the Insanity" diet where you can eat a
>> >normal amount of food but everything had to be lower
>> >than 20% of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot
>> >but I didn't lose much weight at all.
>>
>> Try packing up the fags. Since quitting at the beginning of
>> April I've gained a full stone. Oh heck!
>
>That happens to a lot of people who quit, because the replace one habit with
>the other supposedly.

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

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

> but the other bad effects like
>stained teeth, etc. wouldn't be worth it to me, especially after seeing my
>grandmother suffering from emphysema after a lifetime of smoking Marlboros.
>
>I don't know how she breathed at all, to tell the truth. She had symptoms
>even in clear air, and she smoked so much in her tiny apartment that when I
>went in there, I felt like *my* lungs were full of pea soup. I got sick
>afterward too..

Sorry to hear about your Gran. If she's got emphysema,
is she a pink puffer or a blue bloater? A good way to
find out rather than observing her breath (rasp more like)
is to check her weight loss, if any. Pink puffers develop
muscle wasting and massive weight loss due to heart
problems while blue bloaters who retain co2 just get heart
failure on the one side of it and don't lose weight, if I
remember correctly. My mum's a pink puffer :-(

Rubystars wrote:
> "Gooserider" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>"Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article
>
> er,
>
>>>"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. Don't they
>
> know
>
>>>>any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
>>>
>>>I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
>
> low-cal.
>
>>I
>>
>>>*gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
>>
>>especially
>>
>>>a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>>>
>>
>>Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream
>
> or
>
>>brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
>>weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat
>
> much"
>
>>but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000
>
> cals/day
>
>>just to maintain.
>
>
> You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might not
> eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.
>
> 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.

> 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.

>
> 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. 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.

> The people I
> see buying low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat people. I
> went through a phase where I was trying that "Stop the Insanity" diet where
> you can eat a normal amount of food but everything had to be lower than 20%
> of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot but I didn't lose much weight at
> all.
>
> Add to this the contradictory claims made by various "Experts" on what
> should be eaten, how much, and when, and it can be extremely hard to figure
> it all out.
>
> Besides, food is only part of the picture. They need to exercise too. If
> they tried exercising, they'd burn more calories no matter how much they
> ate.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

ipse dixit wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:30:46 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>
>>"ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:06:21 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>>You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons
>>>>why a 300 lb person might not eat much but still
>>>>maintain or even gain weight.
>>>>
>>>>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. 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.
>>>
>>>One of my over-eating problems is that it takes me longer
>>>than most to "feel" full-up. I can wolf down three large
>>>meals before I'm ready to leave the table while others just
>>>pick and poke at their plate like sparrows.

That's because you're an undisciplined glutton, and
have been your whole life.

>>>Also, I like the
>>>taste of food, so why hasn't someone invented something
>>>to spray on my tongue to reduce my taste-appetites?

For the same reason no one has invented a
self-discipline pill: it wouldn't work, and you
wouldn't take it if it did. Self-discipline comes from
*within*, you stupid ******.

>>
>>I understand what you mean.
>
>
> I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo.

You've a thing for disgusting gluttony.

>
>
>
>>>>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. The people I see buying
>>>>low calorie food, fat free food, etc. are usually fat
>>>>people.I went through a phase where I was trying
>>>>that "Stop the Insanity" diet where you can eat a
>>>>normal amount of food but everything had to be lower
>>>>than 20% of calories from fat. I wasn't eating a lot
>>>>but I didn't lose much weight at all.
>>>
>>>Try packing up the fags. Since quitting at the beginning of
>>>April I've gained a full stone. Oh heck!
>>
>>That happens to a lot of people who quit, because the replace one habit with
>>the other supposedly.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>>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 and
> feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet.

Forget it. You are a lard-fried couch potato, and you
always shall be.

> I've never
> really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before.

You've never tried anything MEANINGFUL in your life,
you pillock.

On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:20:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> announced in front of God and everybody:

>Rubystars 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.

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

Dawn

"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.
<snip>

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

You can take an active role in "being active" rather than waiting to feel
like it. I almost never feel like exercising, but I do it because I need to.

> > but the other bad effects like
> >stained teeth, etc. wouldn't be worth it to me, especially after seeing
my
> >grandmother suffering from emphysema after a lifetime of smoking
Marlboros.
> >
> >I don't know how she breathed at all, to tell the truth. She had symptoms
> >even in clear air, and she smoked so much in her tiny apartment that when
I
> >went in there, I felt like *my* lungs were full of pea soup. I got sick
> >afterward too..
>
> Sorry to hear about your Gran.

Thanks.

>If she's got emphysema,

She doesn't anymore. She's dead.

> is she a pink puffer or a blue bloater? A good way to
> find out rather than observing her breath (rasp more like)
> is to check her weight loss, if any. Pink puffers develop
> muscle wasting and massive weight loss due to heart
> problems while blue bloaters who retain co2 just get heart
> failure on the one side of it and don't lose weight, if I
> remember correctly. My mum's a pink puffer :-(

Kind of sounds like she was a pink puffer. She had to "puff" for breath
every few minutes when she was talking. She was pretty scrawny, but then,
she only ate once a day when she was at home. I don't think she had the
energy to cook more than that. She lit up all day long though. One after
another. She even tried to smoke when she went on oxygen a couple of times.
She could've exploded our house, but I don't blame her, she had dementia and
alzheimers too at that point, so she didn't really know what she was doing.
I don't know if it was advanced age or "muscle wasting" from the emphysema
that caused her to be weak (probably a combination of both) but she couldn't
even open our refrigerator without help.

-Rubystars

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.

>(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?

>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.

[sorry to hear about your Gran. snip]

Dawn Taylor wrote:

> On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:20:39 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> > announced in front of God and everybody:
>
>
>>Rubystars 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

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).

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.

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.

> <snip>
>
>>>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 and
>>feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never
>>really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before.
>
>
> You can take an active role in "being active" rather than waiting to feel
> like it. I almost never feel like exercising, but I do it because I need to.
>
>
>>>but the other bad effects like
>>>stained teeth, etc. wouldn't be worth it to me, especially after seeing
>
> my
>
>>>grandmother suffering from emphysema after a lifetime of smoking
>
> Marlboros.
>
>>>I don't know how she breathed at all, to tell the truth. She had symptoms
>>>even in clear air, and she smoked so much in her tiny apartment that when
>
> I
>
>>>went in there, I felt like *my* lungs were full of pea soup. I got sick
>>>afterward too..
>>
>>Sorry to hear about your Gran.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>>If she's got emphysema,
>
>
> She doesn't anymore. She's dead.
>
>
>>is she a pink puffer or a blue bloater? A good way to
>>find out rather than observing her breath (rasp more like)
>>is to check her weight loss, if any. Pink puffers develop
>>muscle wasting and massive weight loss due to heart
>>problems while blue bloaters who retain co2 just get heart
>>failure on the one side of it and don't lose weight, if I
>>remember correctly. My mum's a pink puffer :-(
>
>
> Kind of sounds like she was a pink puffer. She had to "puff" for breath
> every few minutes when she was talking. She was pretty scrawny, but then,
> she only ate once a day when she was at home. I don't think she had the
> energy to cook more than that. She lit up all day long though. One after
> another. She even tried to smoke when she went on oxygen a couple of times.
> She could've exploded our house, but I don't blame her, she had dementia and
> alzheimers too at that point, so she didn't really know what she was doing.
> I don't know if it was advanced age or "muscle wasting" from the emphysema
> that caused her to be weak (probably a combination of both) but she couldn't
> even open our refrigerator without help.
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Gooserider" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>"Doug Lerner" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article
> >
> > er,
> >
> >>>"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. Don't they
> >
> > know
> >
> >>>>any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
> >>>
> >>>I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
> >
> > low-cal.
> >
> >>I
> >>
> >>>*gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
> >>
> >>especially
> >>
> >>>a lacto-vegetarian diet.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course. It doesn't matter if the calories consumed are from ice cream
> >
> > or
> >
> >>brussels sprouts. If one consumes more calories than one's body needs,
> >>weight gain occurs. That's why I laugh at people who claim to "not eat
> >
> > much"
> >
> >>but are still morbidly obese. A 300 pound person needs to eat 3000
> >
> > cals/day
> >
> >>just to maintain.
> >
> >
> > You shouldn't laugh at them! There are reasons why a 300 lb person might
not
> > eat much but still maintain or even gain weight.
> >
> > 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. 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. 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.

> 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, 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.

It's extremely easy to gain weight, and it's difficult to lose it. 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.


> > 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's not. 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). 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. 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.

> 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 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

"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

"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

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

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
>
>

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.

"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

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
>
>

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

Bullshit. 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 BULLSHIT, 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.

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.
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> 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.

It can be the resting metabolism that makes all the difference, when the
vast majority of Americans don't do regular exercise.

> > 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".

Yeah, I think most people are big for lifestyle reasons, and nothing else,
but my point originally was that it's not necessarily a lie when someone
says that they're eating a small amount and still gaining or maintaining a
large weight.

<Snip>
> 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.

That's very specific information. How much BS did you have to sift through
to find it? There's a diet plan being advertized on tv right now that's
called the "Body Makeover" or something similar, where people take photos of
themselves, mark on them with markers to indicate where they want to change,
and then do a miniscule amount of exercise every day (much less than 20-30
minutes). The more reliable information I've come across indicates that the
claims of that infomercial are bogus, you can't spot-reduce fat, you can
only tone muscle groups in certain areas. The infomercial decleares "Eat
more!" (as if that's really something an overeater needs to do anyway!) and
"Exercise less!" (that's really a bad message to send, especially for long
term health).

How is someone supposed to know that commercial is bogus though? Most people
aren't exactly biology majors. You can say 20-30 minutes and cut calories,
but then someone else is telling them something completely opposite to that.
So how is the average person supposed to distinguish who is lying and who's
telling the truth, especially when the lie is so much more appealing?

> 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.

I think that in some people it is family genetics alone, or both in
combination. In the vast majority of overweight people though (most, not
all) you're right.

<snip>
> > 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.

They know they have a *weight* problem, they may not necessarily know they
have a portion control problem. They may think that eating a huge portion of
potatoes will help them lose weight instead of eating a huge portion of
steak, because potatoes are lower in fat. They may think eating a box of
sugary Snack Wells cookies will help them lose weight instead of eating a
package of chips a hoy. Some of these changes might help a little, but they
don't address the issue of portion control.

> > 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.

And search for it until they find it, and then sift through BS. When you
have infomercials constantly telling people "Eat all you want! and lose 10
lbs. in 5 days!" it can be confusing for people.

> > 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.

Yeah, it's frustrating.

> 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.

I'm not saying it's a legit excuse (it's not), just saying it's a lot easier
to talk about losing weight than to actually do it. That's one reason I
think people are so big in the U.S. Not only are we constantly bombarded
with food ads (heck, I can't watch the news without commercials telling me
about the wonders of Domino's Pizza, Taco Bell, Golden Corral, Hartz Chicken
Buffet, etc.) that can trigger cravings, but there's a double whammy with
all the distorted, wrong, and dangerous diet information being pushed in
people's faces.

> > 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.

And then take the effort to sift through the BS.

> >>>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.

Well if someone wants to take 10 years to get to goal weight, maybe.

> > It's not.
>
> It is.

It's hard to make a change significant enough to see the results within a
reasonable time.

> > 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.

So is a lot of BS.

> > 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!

Easy to say, you know what you're talking about. The "Food pyramid" tells
people to get 2 servings of dairy, so some people think cheese like that is
part of a balanced diet.

> > 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.

I agree that everyone should *make time* for exercise. It's probably the
most important thing out of any of this.

> >>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.

That's not really fair. They're given a large amount of information, most of
it untrue. I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
"reflexology" for weight loss.

> 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.

You're assuming 2-3 hours of productive research. You're not counting the
time spent looking at hypnotist sites, trying various diets from tv, etc.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
<snip>
>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."


-Rubystars