Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

"ipse dixit" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:51:51 GMT, "Rubystars"
wrote:


"ipse dixit" wrote in message
snip
I've a thing for falfel kebabs at the mo. Each kebab
contains 2 meat-ball sized lumps of it cut in half,
well-fried mushrooms, peppers, garlic (2 cloves) and
onions, all held in a garlic pitabread with lettuce and
humous. I could do 4 but that would be showing off.

The first few days I had of eating 1500/day were really hard

I'll bet! I can't do 1500 kebabs/day. Respect - Wendy.

lol

(I was used to around 2500/day). I had my stomach growling, etc.

"growling" - after 2500 kebabs per day? Blimey, so would
mine, old girl. Are we talking calories here?

Yeah, we're talking calories.

but it got a lot easier. I
can be full after eating a smaller amount now. Maybe my stomach shrunk.

Maybe. If you don't mind my hypocritical preaching for
a minute; dieting is for whimps. I reckon the only way
to lose weight is to burn it off with regular exercise. Eat
until you're full, but make sure you burn it off afterwards.
The diet will look after itself if you work your body hard
and regularly.

I'm trying to make a lifestyle shift. I don't count calories every day
anymore because I got the hang of what it looked/felt like (but I do on some
days just so I don't drift too far away from my goal of calories, that would
be easy to do). Exercise is more important than food, though.

[sorry to hear about your Gran. snip]

Thanks.

-Rubystars

"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

Bull****. The ONLY people entitled to unconditional
love are children, because they had no choice in their
own creation, and children need parental love in order
to develop as healthy people. Friends are people you
CHOOSE to love or like, based on qualities they
possess, or at least possessed at the time you chose to
befriend them. Friendship is not unconditional, and
should never be regarded as such.

and helping you
hide bodies of annoying do-gooders. Didn't anyone tell you that?

You have much to learn. I doubt you'll get there.


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

I don't know of anyone claiming that obesity directly
causes any number of deaths. Obesity causes and/or
exacerbates conditions that are known to lead to death.

It's worth noting, though, that much as with smoking,
obesity probably does NOT lead to increased health care
expenditure. The reason: obesity DOES lead to greatly
increased mortality, so that fat people die before they
begin to consume much in the way of medical care.


And if they're ****ing *me* off, with all the tofu in my refrigerator (I
have a vegetarian in the house and I skip eating meat several times a
week), they're probably ****ing off a lot of other people.

I'm surprised they didn't target Penn Gillette. On a recent episode of
Penn & Teller's BULL****, they came up with proof of hypocrisy,
following the paper trail to the door of the commercial refrigerator
PETA uses to store the animal bodies they kill. Yes, good old PETA kills
animals. I bet folks that gave $$ to PETA are surprised it was used to
kill animals.

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.

Ignoramus15189 wrote:

In article , Roger Zoul wrote:

Ignoramus15189 wrote:
:: I enjoy the thought of animals being murdered and exploited for my
:: eating pleasure. I am the king of animal world, after all!

That's just weird.....




I simply like annoying vegetarians, I used to date one


were you the dumper or dumpee???