Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Samus_aran115 wrote:He probably had the finest food available to him,most of which I can imagine was fine meat and sugars from the western world. Probably a lot of stuff we know to be very bad for you

But I agree. My god what a tubolard!

I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?

Samus_aran115 wrote:He was also rich The only fat people were the super rich and those who worked in churches (priests were often quite fat)

Yes, but you said obesity didn't exist, when clearly it did.

Frazzled wrote:
I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?

Apparently he's not outgrown the blissful ignorance of youth just yet, for what that's worth. Yep. We all knew everything about everything in our teen years

metallifan wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?

Apparently he's not outgrown the blissful ignorance of youth just yet, for what that's worth. Yep. We all knew everything about everything in our teen years

Whilst there's truth in that statement (teenage arrogance, we know everything... yes I know everything including the fact that I'm just arrogant and thus don't know everythi- I digress.), I find that just as Teenagers insist they know more than they do, "older" types are quick to jump on the age wagon

Opinions aren't invalidated by age, if an adult can disprove a youngling's point he may go ahead... but if the issue is contentious then relying on how long ago you fell out of your mother doesn't exactly shut the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll admit I haven't actually checked what you were discussing.. I just saw an argument used against me all the time

I think it's less about that, henners, and more about the fact that most teenagers CAN eat like rhinocerous without putting on weight. That changes as you get older, as many of the slightly older lads on here will attest to.

How do I know this?

Well, when I was 18 I was 15st and 6'3" - here I am now, 10 years older and 3st heavier. I'm the same height, funnily enough.

Henners91 wrote:
Opinions are invalidated by age,

Corrected your typo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I think it's less about that, henners, and more about the fact that most teenagers CAN eat like rhinocerous without putting on weight. That changes as you get older, as many of the slightly older lads on here will attest to.

How do I know this?

Well, when I was 18 I was 15st and 6'3" - here I am now, 10 years older and 3st heavier. I'm the same height, funnily enough.

This actually.

Henners91 wrote:
Opinions aren't invalidated by age, if an adult can disprove a youngling's point he may go ahead...

You have two different ideas here. One is that opinions are always relevant, regardless of the experience of the holder. The other is that age shouldn't serve to invalidate any opinion on its own.

The first idea is wrong, as there are certain things (having a child, getting married, etc.) that are age-dependent while requiring experience to judge on a subjective level.

The second idea is right, as there are other things (science, logic, philosophy, etc.) that, while still requiring experience to judge, are non-age-dependent.

In this particular case its clear that Samus has little experience regarding the science behind weight control, and the experiential side of weight gain with age.

mmm internet cookies.

@Dogma, I guess that's technically correct... Can't really argue against that since my instinctive reaction, that a young'un shouldn't comment with authority within those areas still makes my argument fall flat on its face... But I'm sure you can understand what I was trying to get at...

Arrogance is a two-way thing across the gulf of age

Fafnir wrote:One thing most people don't seem to understand is how their metabolism works. Starving yourself all day only makes it easier for you to gain weight, despite wishful thinking. Especially since you're more likely to binge after starving yourself all day.

Much of weight loss and management can be attained by simply increasing the amount of meals you eat every day while decreasing the meal size. You can eat the same amount and same food, but by spreading it out properly, you can increase your metabolism, making weight management much easier before you even start on a deit or excercise plan. Ideally, breakfast should be the biggest meal of the day, with dinner being the smallest. Of course, things rarely work out like that, but it's good to know.

Eating a little bit when you actually feel hungry is actually a good thing.

Now ya see, I must be the exception that proves the rule.

I recently went on a diet at the end of June. Some facts.

I have 1000-1400 calories a day. Max. Usually more like 900-1200.

I rarely eat breakfast. Used to eat it all the time (really unhealthy stuff too, sausage etc.)

I rarely snack (cant remember the last time, think it was a fortnight ago).

I do have the occasional treat (say once every month get takout. Though, I find my stomach cannot process the amount of crap that I used to eat in one sitting, I get bad stomach cramps. TMI?)


Despite everyone saying "you need breakfast!" "you'll never lose weight!" "you'll keep binging!" here is the result.

I have lost close on 2st (need to weigh myself again) in just under 2 mnths. Including a week where I was dragged out to 2 family barbeques. (Didnt eat anything the 2nd time, had a healthy meal before we left.)

I have never felt the need to eat, or to binge. I dont really snack, even when I was a fatty I just had big meals. I dont really want brekky anymore, I would prefer to spend the calories on my tea. I.e. Skip toast and have a few more (healthy oven baked) chips on a night as a treat. I stay in my calorie limit, as I skipped brekky, and feel much more full on the night. Stops any late night snacking cravings that may or may not creep up.

And you know what? I feel great. Stronger, lighter, fitter.

Perhaps I'm a scientific oddity. I always did get what I wanted though, only now instead of fatty stuff, I want nothing.

Perhaps this is bragging, but ya know what? I think I've earned the right to a little bit of pride that I have switched to a healthier life now.

Henners91 wrote:@Dogma, I guess that's technically correct... Can't really argue against that since my instinctive reaction, that a young'un shouldn't comment with authority within those areas still makes my argument fall flat on its face... But I'm sure you can understand what I was trying to get at...

Arrogance is a two-way thing across the gulf of age

Its not arrogance if you're right baby. When you sruvive the asteroid that takes out the dinosaurs like I did, then you can give a qualified opinion.

It's not really difficult, weight gain is calouries in>calouries burnt.

People have more sedantry lifestyles these days, and the car is partly to blame for that. You have to worry when a 30min walk is considered exercise.

Bartali wrote:It's not really difficult, weight gain is calouries in>calouries burnt.

Except it is more difficult than that, and anyone that thinks it's so cut-and-dry straightforward needs to read up on the subject a little more before posting their opinions.

Again, metabolism plays a huge part. As do genetics. Oh, and lets not forget glandular disorder. If it were as simple as "Work out more and eat less, hurr", then I wouldn't be able to say that I know some -very- good Squash players that also have some rather large beer guts on themselves. Truth is, it's -not- that simple. When I was in highschool, I knew a kid that was very athletically active, but he was ~5ft and weighed in at close to 275lbs. After grad, he got surgery to correct a gland problem and he dropped down to 125lbs. Next time, try making an informed post.

Bartali wrote:It's not really difficult, weight gain is calouries in>calouries burnt.

In general this is true, but its not representative of the complexity inherent in determining how many calories are being burned when considering the sort of calories being taken in. Notably, deficiencies of calcium and potassium (which are very common) can have a hugely negative impact on the body's ability to actively convert food energy to ATP; meaning that the process occurs when you're sleeping. Since fat really only metabolizes when you are at rest, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what happens when food energy is being consumer during that period of time.

As has already been said, it is very easy to become both fat, and malnourished. In fact, many people believe that the problem with obesity in the developed world is more tightly bound up with poor nutrition than simply eating too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The happy reaper wrote:
Despite everyone saying "you need breakfast!" "you'll never lose weight!" "you'll keep binging!" here is the result.

I have lost close on 2st (need to weigh myself again) in just under 2 mnths. Including a week where I was dragged out to 2 family barbeques. (Didnt eat anything the 2nd time, had a healthy meal before we left.)

That type of diet can work for some people. It takes a lot of willpower, or a really active lifestyle that prevents you from really acting on cravings, but it certainly can work. You do have to watch out for vitamin, and fat (you need a certain amount of dietary fat), deficiencies though.

That said, the great danger comes from the fact that the diet isn't sustainable. Your body can't survive on that type of intake once it has fully consumed its fat stores, so eventually you'll have to move to a complete sort of eating regimen. Its that second phase, the shift away from the strict consumption limits, that causes most people to gain back the weight. Its relatively easy to stick to a difficult diet when you're seeing results, but when all you see every day is the same person that was there the day before, it can be very easy to slip back into bad habits.