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.

 mitch_rifle wrote:
change the way you eat your food, and plan it out a bit

I dropped basically all of this from my diet

biscuits, savoury and sweet
potato chips, and basically anything that thats marketed as a type of chip
ice cream, most dairy stuff so all your yoghurt and fancy cheese, i mainly just eat your regulard plain block of real cheese
soft drinks, cordial, milk etc, i only do diet drinks, but im mostly just a water guy now

seriously once you stop eating alot of this crap, you save alot of money and you eat less as well. Not because your starving yourself but after a couple of weeks you lose the craving to eat it.

also to make it easier on yourself when learning how to cook, forget the notion that you need a meal with 10 different ingredients, one of my favourite meal is one chicken breast no skin, stirfried in sweet chilli sauce with mixed vegeatables on brown rice, takes like 10 minutes to make and tastes great

eat simple

While you're at it, also:

Stop having fun
Stop enjoying life
Stop breathing.



I care less about my arteries then I care about a nice juicy steak.

Mind you, I'm a 6'2 guy who's weighed 70 kilograms his whole life.

fething is exercise. Just saying...

 kronk wrote:
fething is exercise. Just saying...

Unless you're lazy and just lie on the bottom...

NONE OF MY LIMBS WORK.

I need an IV drip for toffee paste. :(

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kronk wrote:
fething is exercise. Just saying...

Unless you're lazy and just lie on the bottom...

I'll allow Animal House to answer that for me.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
NONE OF MY LIMBS WORK.

I need an IV drip for toffee paste. :(

There was a report that someone who had a gastric band was juicing mars bars and drinking them... have you tried that?

...that... that's mental.

I need to try it.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Obeisity is poorly explained. Im considered obese at 309lb. But Im not overly big. Im just naturally a big guy. Obese is considered 20lb over the ideal, which is too low to begin
with.

I didn't make it past page one in the thread before I found this gem. This is why America is obese. Because this is the prevalent attitude. It's not "my" problem, it's a flaw in the system.

People keep coming up with excuses:
"BMI is flawed" - sure, but not as much as you might think
"The definition of Obesity is too low" - wow, really? You're topping the charts over 300 lbs, and complaining about the definitions?
"I'm not overly big" - seriously?? 300 lbs?

I really don't mean to pick on you, Hotsauceman1, but you put the number out there, following it with exactly the rationalizations that characterize the attitude in this country. Yes, 300 lbs is obese. Sure, you can point to a handful of exceptional human specimens playing pro-ball at that weight, and point out how their BMI doesn't reflect their body, but their weight and diet is carefully monitored by team nutritionists. If you're not one of them, that excuse doesn't work for you.

My wife is a registered dietitian, we frequently have this discussion at home. Stop making excuses. Our society does not make it easy, as there are empty calories all around us. But, only one person is responsible for what goes into your mouth. You can choose to avoid soda (even diet soda, which has been linked to excess weight gain in studies on animals). You can choose to avoid processed foods. You can choose to eat healthier snacks.

300 lbs is not healthy for 99% of the population. You have increased risks of chronic health problems, increased risks of complications from standard procedures, and increased costs for most healthcare. As a society, we need to stop making excuses, stop telling people that "all bodies are beautiful", and start accepting the truth.

I lost a stone last year just by changing my diet and that was without exercise. It was great. I've since went back on that diet, but I know I can get back to the thinner version of me that was around last summer.

Surely being fat in America increases your healthcare bills substantially? That should be enough of a put off.

Reminds me of the NHS having to order some rather expensive special beds for the mega-fatties. God help those Nurses.

I'm 252lbs at 5 foot 10 inches, I'm shockingly overweight.

The scary thing is, I see a lot of people who weigh more at that height who seem to think it's healthy, and make me look comparatively thin.

That terrifies me.

 Medium of Death wrote:


Surely being fat in America increases your healthcare bills substantially? That should be enough of a put off.

Oh goodness me, no. Not at all. We're not allowed to have risk based health care in the US anymore


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Redbeard wrote:


My wife is a registered dietitian, we frequently have this discussion at home. Stop making excuses. Our society does not make it easy, as there are empty calories all around us. But, only one person is responsible for what goes into your mouth. You can choose to avoid soda (even diet soda, which has been linked to excess weight gain in studies on animals). You can choose to avoid processed foods. You can choose to eat healthier snacks.

Yep. Couldn't agree more. That being said, that doesn't make it easy. It certainly isn't a lot of the time. But that's where you have to take some responsibility for yourself.

As a society, we need to stop making excuses, stop telling people that "all bodies are beautiful", and start accepting the truth.

Couldn't agree more. Sadly, I just don't see it happening anytime soon when anyone that calls Melissa McCarthy a cow is very publicly ostracized for it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Couldn't agree more. Sadly, I just don't see it happening anytime soon when anyone that calls Melissa McCarthy a cow is very publicly ostracized for it.

There are ways and means. I've had to try to convey to patients before that if they lost some weight and got fitter that they would be much less likely to suffer from the pains and troubles that they currently suffer from; the problem is that some people are very sensitive about it and will retreat from any kind of negative (or even neutral) statements about their weight.

You do need to mollycoddle some people while others do best with a clip round the ear and a good shouting at. You have to judge what is appropriate for each person and tailor both your advice and any treatment plan to match what works for that person.

The problem with the more expensive = unhealthy isn't choices between kale, the super food of manly men, and a frozen pizza, it is between 75/25 ground meat (cheap and unhealthy but lots of it) and 90/10 (expensive and healthier); between $3 a loaf whole grain and .89 white bread.

 Ahtman wrote:
The problem with the more expensive = unhealthy isn't choices between kale, the super food of manly men, and a frozen pizza, it is between 75/25 ground meat (cheap and unhealthy but lots of it) and 90/10 (expensive and healthier); between $3 a loaf whole grain and .89 white bread.

Ugh, they sell 75/25?

I honestly didn't know that. I think the lowest we've every bought was like, 85/15....

And I can't comment on bread....we buy it from a local baker so we pay more anyways......

 cincydooley wrote:
Sadly, I just don't see it happening anytime soon when anyone that calls Melissa McCarthy a cow is very publicly ostracized for it.

Because there is no more productive way to deal with obesity than this.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
The problem with the more expensive = unhealthy isn't choices between kale, the super food of manly men, and a frozen pizza, it is between 75/25 ground meat (cheap and unhealthy but lots of it) and 90/10 (expensive and healthier); between $3 a loaf whole grain and .89 white bread.

Ugh, they sell 75/25?

I honestly didn't know that. I think the lowest we've every bought was like, 85/15....

And I can't comment on bread....we buy it from a local baker so we pay more anyways......

Ahtman brings up another good point on beef choices (you're kind of smart or something). Buy the lean stuff, guys. It's worth the extra few bucks.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Sadly, I just don't see it happening anytime soon when anyone that calls Melissa McCarthy a cow is very publicly ostracized for it.

Because there is no more productive way to deal with obesity than this.

That's not the point. The point is that anytime anyone says anything remotely begrudging about her they're lambasted. Contrarily, we say gakky things about skinny actresses all the time. And for some reason, it was fine when some talking head said Kate Upton was getting chunky....

Then, like we've said before, there's the whole "real women have curves" nonsense floating about, like women that compete in fitness competitions or crossfit aren't "real women."

I don't say a ton of nice things about the Obama's but I think Lady O's 'get kids fit' program is completely admirable, and I wish it was working better.

In regards to ground beef - it occurs to me that I my not have known about the 75/25 because, for most things that require ground beef, we usually substitute ground turkey because my wife likes it more.

It's not just beef types, it's also how much you eat. Get a kitchen scale, and use it.

I know in my supermarket, the chicken breasts are sold by weight, and you can get two breasts that weigh 1.75 lbs, or two breasts that weigh 1 lb. A "serving size" of chicken is 4 oz (.25 lbs), so the smaller pack should create four servings. All too frequently, someone will just buy the bigger pack, and then they're looking at eating that much more.

Cut out some fat, but not all. We need fat and having some helps you feel satisfied. You don't need skim milk, 1% and 2% are just fine.


Edit: also, while talking about serving sizes, realize that, in US restaurants, it's very safe to assume they're feeding you twice what you need. Take the entrees and cut them in half before you even start eating, and take half of it home for leftovers. We're so trained to "clean our plates", that we don't realize that our plates are too big.

Hey redbeard - what size chicken breast do you typically cook for your meals?

We do 8oz or, if we're making a dish (like curry) where it's chopped up, we'll use a pound.

We try to get a pound of meat (either beef or chicken or pork), and then make four servings out of it, so it lasts the two of us two days. Cuts down on cooking, while you handle portion sizes at the point where you buy the food.

 Redbeard wrote:
We try to get a pound of meat (either beef or chicken or pork), and then make four servings out of it, so it lasts the two of us two days. Cuts down on cooking, while you handle portion sizes at the point where you buy the food.

I've had to adjust lately too; my wife just failed her first pregnancy glucose test, so I've gotta start making her lower GI stuff....If you have any pointers there, I'd happily take them. There's a breadth of info out there and much of it seems to conflict.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Sadly, I just don't see it happening anytime soon when anyone that calls Melissa McCarthy a cow is very publicly ostracized for it.

Because there is no more productive way to deal with obesity than this.

That's not the point. The point is that anytime anyone says anything remotely begrudging about her their lambasted. Contrarily, we say gakky things about skinny actresses all the time. And for some reason, it was fine when some talking head said Kate Upton was getting chunky....

There's a pretty big difference between discussing someone's weight, and calling them a cow, yes? I mean, what's "unfortunate" that we as a society ostracize, to use your word, someone who is rude and cruel? Lets not do the thing where we try to coat the cruelty with a paper thin veneer of concern-trolling, either. You want to talk about body issues, we should, but calling people names isn't productive or polite, and pretending it's somehow therapeutic is sociopathic. It's just fething rude, and there is nothing wrong with calling out people who act like jerks.

So far as the "Let's Move" campaign, I agree. This is a country with an incredibly obesity problem and the idea that perhaps we should try and teach children to eat better and exercise more really should be something that all political affiliations agree upon. I mean, from a fiscal conservative standpoint, it costs less tax dollars to try and prevent obesity than to deal with it.

 d-usa wrote:
The 40/40/20 wasn't a joke at all.

They used to sell the 20oz bottle of soda and have the nutritional information for 1 serving on the bottle. So when you look at it the numbers would not look that horrible, but you would have to realize that the numbers are for 8oz and not 20oz. I don't think that the majority of people would take their 20oz bottle and drink 8oz for lunch, 8oz for dinner, and maybe 4oz for breakfast (or 40%,40%,20%).

They still do... If you look at the actual nutrition label, its still broken down by "single serving" what they've done now, is added a fairly small tab on the "front" of the label which has the caloric count for the whole bottle. The only place this has changed is on 12 oz. cans (I know because I just looked at the one sitting on my desk)

So, 20oz. bottle still shows the "standard" 8 oz. serving, but the can has been adjusted to include that extra 4 oz. as part of the "single serving" (because honestly, who is going to drink only 8 oz from a can of anything?)

I think the new rule is that a serving is now defined as whatever someone could reasonably consume in a single sitting. So the 12oz can has to show the entire calorie content, but the 20oz doesn't.

The difference is when the container is defined as a bulk container or something.

The 20oz bottle is in the same class as 2 liters. So they don't have to show the entire thing.

The same with Gatoraid. Its "intended" to be consumed over time during a workout or some such crap, so the serving isn't technically the whole bottle.

Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

I also never really understood the people that complained about overweight people and insult them, but also make of them and laugh at them when they are at a gym or exercising. If one actually is concerned it would seem like encouragement would be the route to go, not scorn and derision. One the biggest obstacles for the overweight isn't discipline or not knowing how to eat, but shame and emotional issues. Exercise regiments and machines are also not designed for the them so much as the already fit, so finding an appropriate workout can be frustrating in and of itself.

On the other there seems to be a bit of a trend to accept yourself no matter your health condition, which while nice in theory, ignores the serious health implications of weight. Yes, women don't need to look like supermodels to be pretty or attractive, but nor should they think that 100lb.s overweight is perfectly acceptable either. The same goes for men. You don't need to look like David Beckham to be healthy, but neither should one be content looking like Chris Farley. We need to promote the middle ground between fat shaming (I hate that phrase btw) and fat acceptance.

Usually it isn't the end goal (how one looks) that matters as much as the journey; learning to consistently exercise and eat proper meal portions.

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

I also never really understood the people that complained about overweight people and insult them, but also make of them and laugh at them when they are at a gym or exercising. If one actually is concerned it would seem like encouragement would be the route to go, not scorn and derision. One the biggest obstacles for the overweight isn't discipline or not knowing how to eat, but shame and emotional issues. Exercise regiments and machines are also not designed for the them so much as the already fit, so finding an appropriate workout can be frustrating in and of itself.

On the other there seems to be a bit of a trend to accept yourself no matter your health condition, which while nice in theory, ignores the serious health implications of weight. Yes, women don't need to look like supermodels to be pretty or attractive, but nor should they think that 100lb.s overweight is perfectly acceptable either. The same goes for men. You don't need to look like David Beckham to be healthy, but neither should one be content looking like Chris Farley. We need to promote the middle ground between fat shaming (I hate that phrase btw) and fat acceptance.

Usually it isn't the end goal (how one looks) that matters as much as the journey; learning to consistently exercise and eat proper meal portions.

Jobs in America have also become more sedentary. Many of my late relatives ate bacon for breakfast every day, but lived long because they had active lifestyles. Now in most of the southern states, close to 40% of the population admits to performing no physical exercise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the new rule is that a serving is now defined as whatever someone could reasonably consume in a single sitting.

Do you (or anyone else) have a link to how this is calculated? I've always wondered how that's done.

 Ahtman wrote:
I also never really understood the people that complained about overweight people and insult them, but also make of them and laugh at them when they are at a gym or exercising. If one actually is concerned it would seem like encouragement would be the route to go, not scorn and derision. One the biggest obstacles for the overweight isn't discipline or not knowing how to eat, but shame and emotional issues. Exercise regiments and machines are also not designed for the them so much as the already fit, so finding an appropriate workout can be frustrating in and of itself.

I think the explanation for that is "donkey-caves".

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the new rule is that a serving is now defined as whatever someone could reasonably consume in a single sitting.

Do you (or anyone else) have a link to how this is calculated? I've always wondered how that's done.

I just asked my wife (again, a registered dietitian) and she says there is no actual method for determining what constitutes a serving size.

There is an established process for determining the nutritional content of some amount of a substance, and it generally adheres to the principle of conservation of matter/energy. If an egg is 80 calories and a slice of bacon is 40 calories (actual numbers), then a 3-egg, 2 bacon omelette is 320 calories. (Give or take if you add a little milk or butter). This works even on large-scale projects.

Realistically, if they provide the nutritional content for 20 oz of coke, and you drink 8 oz, it's not really rocket science to calculate 40%. If that amount of math is to blame for the obesity epidemic, then I'd say we've also got an educational crisis on our hands.

Not sure, although its better than it was before.

The prior method was whatever the manufacture wanted a serving size to be. Now its "what could reasonably be consumed in a single sitting"

Its still subjective as all get out, but at least its no longer completely arbitrary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

I also never really understood the people that complained about overweight people and insult them, but also make of them and laugh at them when they are at a gym or exercising. If one actually is concerned it would seem like encouragement would be the route to go, not scorn and derision. One the biggest obstacles for the overweight isn't discipline or not knowing how to eat, but shame and emotional issues. Exercise regiments and machines are also not designed for the them so much as the already fit, so finding an appropriate workout can be frustrating in and of itself.

On the other there seems to be a bit of a trend to accept yourself no matter your health condition, which while nice in theory, ignores the serious health implications of weight. Yes, women don't need to look like supermodels to be pretty or attractive, but nor should they think that 100lb.s overweight is perfectly acceptable either. The same goes for men. You don't need to look like David Beckham to be healthy, but neither should one be content looking like Chris Farley. We need to promote the middle ground between fat shaming (I hate that phrase btw) and fat acceptance.

Usually it isn't the end goal (how one looks) that matters as much as the journey; learning to consistently exercise and eat proper meal portions.

Jobs in America have also become more sedentary. Many of my late relatives ate bacon for breakfast every day, but lived long because they had active lifestyles. Now in most of the southern states, close to 40% of the population admits to performing no physical exercise.

The odd thing is that there are mixed results on that.

Children on one hand are actually no less active than they used to be(and child obesity is actually dropping last I saw)