http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/31/mcdonalds-all-day-breakfast-is-coming-this-is-not-a-drill-5128383/
QuoteSoon, you'll be able to have your Egg McMuffin for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Hell, you can even have it for elevenses if you fancy.
Because apparently the fast food chain is about to start trialling all day breakfast.
No more 10.30am cut offs to ruin your hangover recovery.
According to Business Insider, Maccy D's is going to start offering an all day breakfast menu at several locations in San Diego next month.
If they prove successful (we're counting on you people of San Diego), it will be rolled out to more restaurants.
'We know our customers love McDonald's breakfast and they tell us they'd like to enjoy it beyond the morning hours,' the company said in a statement.
'We look forward to learning from this test, and it's premature to speculate on any outcomes. We're excited to serve our customers in this area some of McDonald's great-tasting breakfast sandwiches, hash browns and other favorites all day long.'
While we don't wish to speculate prematurely or anything – 24 hour hash browns coming soon guys!
I've never tried it, is it actually any good?
IMO it's better than their regular menu by far.
Their hash browns are excellent. The sausages and McMuffins are great.
Pancakes are so-so. Scrambled eggs are hard as stone. Coffee is almost undrinkable.
Probably been 10 years since I got anything but a McGriddle or french fries from McDonalds.
I do love a McGriddle every now and again.
Good, maybe that means I'll get to have it one day.
I like McMuffins. And the ham&eggs croissant isn't too bad. And the sweet McGriddles. With nutella.
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems. They consider, among other things, to introduce table service in select restaurants.
Meanwhile concepts like Vapiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapiano) do pretty well.
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems. They consider, among other things, to introduce table service in select restaurants.
Meanwhile concepts like Vapiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapiano) do pretty well.
Eh it was only a matter of time.
Lots of different fast food options out there beyond the traditional hamburgers now.
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems.
They've actually seen sales decline across the globe.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems.
They've actually seen sales decline across the globe.
No wonder. That stuff is not food, it's fud. :P
When we can have McDonald's breakfast anytime, we will then take it for granted. I'd be okay if they just extended it to noon.
I don't care much as I haven eat there in a very long time, though I did like some of their breakfast foods when I used to go. This seems an interesting idea though as breakfast is good most any time of day. :)
McD also does "traditional" breakfast here. Typically, it's two breakfast rolls, plus either ham+cheese or your pick from honey, marmelade and nutella:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcdonalds.at%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcms%2Fproducts%2Fpreview_20.png&hash=fe096495012529f12d0ee7850075c418f32d8588)
For under EUR 3.- including coffee. Popular with older people looking to go out for breakfast but not wanting to pay the prices at a proper Viennese café (can't blame them, really).
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2015, 09:38:10 AM
I don't care much as I haven eat there in a very long time, though I did like some of their breakfast foods when I used to go. This seems an interesting idea though as breakfast is good most any time of day. :)
I haven't eaten there since I was in my teens. There are so many other better options.
Big breakfast with hot cakes.
There was a recent scandal involving McDonald's in Taiwan. Apparently they introduced McSandwiches for take away. On the left side is what the sandwiches look like on the outside. On the right hand side is what they look like on the inside :weep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F1425529789_cde6_zpspadplnra.jpg&hash=a9a71d5dbdfad789513a49996b43f61bb6416bc6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/1425529789_cde6_zpspadplnra.jpg.html)
That's hilarious. Try that shit here and someone's gonna get hurt. We don't mess around with our meat/cheese portions.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 10:02:32 AM
That's hilarious. Try that shit here and someone's gonna get hurt. We don't mess around with our meat/cheese portions.
Asian portions are no where near American ones. But that has gone too far by any standard. I actually think that approaches fraud territory. On a more practical level, who is going to buy that as soon as word gets out? Certainly McDonald's rely on sales volume and not on fooling people once?
I'd prefer they do the regular menu all day.
I had several sad drunken scrapes back in the day of going to McDonalds on my way home only to find they'd switched to the even worse than regular stuff breakfast menu.
Those eggs are just disturbing....
Quote from: Monoriu on March 31, 2015, 09:59:36 AM
There was a recent scandal involving McDonald's in Taiwan. Apparently they introduced McSandwiches for take away. On the left side is what the sandwiches look like on the outside. On the right hand side is what they look like on the inside :weep:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F1425529789_cde6_zpspadplnra.jpg&hash=a9a71d5dbdfad789513a49996b43f61bb6416bc6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/1425529789_cde6_zpspadplnra.jpg.html)
WTF is that bullshit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcdonaldsmenu.mobi%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2Fmcdonalds-Big-Breakfast-with-Hotcakes-Regular-Size-Biscuit-.png&hash=8014920ebb85735637147b6c823333c5d1ed2d33)
Screw a bologna sammich.
Quote from: Tyr on March 31, 2015, 10:24:08 AM
I'd prefer they do the regular menu all day.
I had several sad drunken scrapes back in the day of going to McDonalds on my way home only to find they'd switched to the even worse than regular stuff breakfast menu.
Those eggs are just disturbing....
:huh:
McDonalds makes a big deal about the fact they use fresh cracked eggs for their breakfast menu.
And yes, count me in the "their breakfast menu is the best thing about McDonalds" crowd.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems.
They've actually seen sales decline across the globe.
The chain is in deep trouble. I was actually telling Princesca the other day that if they can't figure out a way to turn things around, I could see them being bankrupt in a decade or less.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 12:50:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2015, 07:01:25 AM
Anyways, McD is struggling in Germany, it seems.
They've actually seen sales decline across the globe.
The chain is in deep trouble. I was actually telling Princesca the other day that if they can't figure out a way to turn things around, I could see them being bankrupt in a decade or less.
I don't care for the food but I'm very surprised to see them having such big trouble.
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2015, 11:54:53 AM
McDonalds makes a big deal about the fact they use fresh cracked eggs for their breakfast menu.
On one or two occassions I actually had small bits of egg shell in my McMuffin, so definitely yeah.
QuoteAnd yes, count me in the "their breakfast menu is the best thing about McDonalds" crowd.
I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
QuoteAnd yes, count me in the "their breakfast menu is the best thing about McDonalds" crowd.
I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.
Other than their fries :mmm:
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2015, 12:55:39 PM
I don't care for the food but I'm very surprised to see them having such big trouble.
I'm not. They've done very little to substantially change their menu in recent years, the burgers are of subpar quality, and they face intense competition from fast casual chains like Five Guys, Smashburger, Shake Shack, The Habit, etc., not to mention renewed competition from other chains in their sector like Wendy's that have tried (and succeeded) to revamp their offerings.
I love it when Arugala talks shop.
They definitely benefitted from the sagging economy and I think they figured they would continue to coast.
I will say that the renovated locations look nicer. Just wish they'd make the grilled chicken sandwich worth what they charge for it.
Of the big three (McD, Burger King, Wendy's) I think McD has changed their menu the most, or at least offered the most new items. Where their problem is is trying to become more upmarket. BK and smaller cheapo places are beating them on the low side (I regularly get BK coupons), Wendy's and 5 Guys and others are better on the high side or at least have a better reputation among people who haven't eaten at a McD in years.
Quote from: frunk on March 31, 2015, 01:10:31 PM
Of the big three (McD, Burger King, Wendy's) I think McD has changed their menu the most, or at least offered the most new items.
Oh yeah... but does McDonald's have an equivalent to the YUMBO!? I don't think so. :sleep:
BK is cheaper than Mickeys? I've always thought of them as a notch up.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 31, 2015, 12:55:39 PM
I don't care for the food but I'm very surprised to see them having such big trouble.
I'm not. They've done very little to substantially change their menu in recent years, the burgers are of subpar quality, and they face intense competition from fast casual chains like Five Guys, Smashburger, Shake Shack, The Habit, etc., not to mention renewed competition from other chains in their sector like Wendy's that have tried (and succeeded) to revamp their offerings.
Fine, but "bankrupt in 10 years or less" is still nonsense.
It's still immensely profitable. There were some doom and gloom stories when McD suffered a one per cent drop in earnings last year (or was it quarter). The stock market didn't like it, but it's hardly a threat to the very viability of the company.
Think about Radioshack. That company was the walking dead for 10 or even 20 years before it went into bankruptcy. McDonalds isn't remotely close to that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
BK is cheaper than Mickeys? I've always thought of them as a notch up.
I haven't been in a year or two, but when I get a sandwich, drink, fries it rings up a buck or two cheaper than when I go to McDs. That's without the incessant coupons I keep getting for BK.
@ Beeb You might be surprised how fast restaurant chains can crash and burn. I think Radioshack held on so long because there were lots of old people who thought that was the only place they could go to get their hearing aid batteries, and enough of them have now died off that they couldn't keep the chain afloat. I doubt there's anyone out there who thinks McDonald's is the only place you can go to get a hamburger.
A hundred clams says Mickeys is not dead in 10 years. Individual franchises maybe, but I can't see the parent company dying by then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
A hundred clams says Mickeys is not dead in 10 years. Individual franchises maybe, but I can't see the parent company dying by then.
I guess the more likely result is the shareholders will oust upper management if they can't figure something out, and then whomever they bring in figures something out to save the chain. :hmm:
Wake me up when they serve burgers etc in the morning.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:22:04 PM
@ Beeb You might be surprised how fast restaurant chains can crash and burn. I think Radioshack held on so long because there were lots of old people who thought that was the only place they could go to get their hearing aid batteries, and enough of them have now died off that they couldn't keep the chain afloat. I doubt there's anyone out there who thinks McDonald's is the only place you can go to get a hamburger.
There are restaurant chains, and then there's freakin McDonalds. It has a brand power and cultural awareness that is without compare. And yes, while people may intellectually know there areother places you can get a hamburger, there are plenty of people to whom McDonalds is the only place they'll go to get a fast food hamburger.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
Wake me up when they serve burgers etc in the morning.
All part of this balanced breakfast.
I could see McD's scaling back at some point, but going tits up? Just don't see that happening in my lifetime.
If nothing else they should be able to live on foreign operations for a couple more decades.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 01:27:11 PM
All part of this balanced breakfast.
Not a fan of so-called breakfast foods. It can be hard to find decent food early in the morning though.
I usually eat protein bars for breakfast.
Either that, or Green Berets... UND IM VERY HUNGRY
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
A hundred clams says Mickeys is not dead in 10 years. Individual franchises maybe, but I can't see the parent company dying by then.
To be fair, bankruptcy isn't the same as dead. Lot of companies can go bankrupt, restructure, and keep going.
But I don't think McDonalds is going bankrupt in 10 years.
In my lifetime? I must have at least another 40 years to go, and I wouldn't dare make any predictions that far out.
Yeah, I meant bankrupt as in Chapter 11.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:34:34 PM
Yeah, I meant bankrupt as in Chapter 11.
Is that the zombie one or the dead one?
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:33:00 PM
I usually eat protein bars for breakfast.
Either that, or Green Berets... UND IM VERY HUNGRY
I don't like sweets, especially for breakfast.
And I'm not into cannibalism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 01:35:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:34:34 PM
Yeah, I meant bankrupt as in Chapter 11.
Is that the zombie one or the dead one?
Reorganization bankruptcy... the one that US airlines go into every few years or so.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 01:32:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 01:27:11 PM
All part of this balanced breakfast.
Not a fan of so-called breakfast foods. It can be hard to find decent food early in the morning though.
Ah I love breakfast foods / it is why brunch is so good!
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
Ah I love breakfast foods / it is why brunch is so good!
Well, that and mimosas. AMIRIGHT?!? :girlhighfive:
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
Ah I love breakfast foods / it is why brunch is so good!
All-you-can-eat bacon and sausage is why brunch is so good.
As long as it's not maple flavoured :yuk:
With you there dude. Maple should be poured on to the sausage, not be in it already. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:56:54 PM
With you there dude. Maple should be poured on to the sausage, not be in it already. :)
:bash:
You hate maple? No wonder you were banished from Canada.
If maple syrup somehow gets to the the sausage or bacon I won't throw it away. But I prefer them to be separated as much as possible. It's just not natural.
I have put maple syrup on my eggs and bacon, mostly to piss off everyone else on the table, but also because its good.
Edit: Fried eggs that is,
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:56:54 PM
With you there dude. Maple should be poured on to the sausage, not be in it already. :)
What was the name of that kid Scout invited home to lunch in To Kill a Mockingbird? :hmm:
Also, maple syrup + goetta = WIN.
I can't stand David Goetta.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
Ah I love breakfast foods / it is why brunch is so good!
Well, that and mimosas. AMIRIGHT?!? :girlhighfive:
Well, of course. A brunch without mimosas is like trying to insist brunch should take place between breakfast and lunch. :weep:
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2015, 02:04:15 PM
I can't stand David Goetta.
He dances like how I expect all Euros to dance (i.e. poorly).
I could go for a huge English breakfast now. :mmm:
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
You hate maple? No wonder you were banished from Canada.
The first time I lived anywhere near the range of the sugar maple was in Illinois.
But it's not so much the maple as the fact that sweets don't belong on meat.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
But it's not so much the maple as the fact that sweets don't belong on meat.
How do you feel about Honey Baked Ham(tm)?
QuoteMcDonald's starts table service in Germany
(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (MCD.N) is introducing table service in Germany as it reinvents itself as a "modern, progressive burger company" under new Chief Executive Steve Easterbrook.
The world's biggest fast-food chain has been testing myriad new ideas, including kiosk ordering, custom burgers and even a completely new restaurant brand in a bid to revive slumping sales and better compete with more nimble chains ranging from Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc (CMG.N) to Burger King (QSR.TO).
"This is where McDonald's is headed," Easterbrook said at a McDonald's in the Frankfurt Airport that serves more than 1 million customers a year.
Diners at that restaurant can now choose to be served at their table after placing an order at the front counter, via a digital kiosk or with a waiter carrying a tablet computer.
McDonald's has tested table service in other markets, a spokeswoman told Reuters.
Easterbrook, 47, made the announcement at the reopening of the restaurant, which is Germany's biggest with more than 500 seats. Germany has been a challenging market for McDonald's, which has struggled to find the right recipe for selling to the nation's health- and cost-conscious diners.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/30/us-mcdonalds-germany-idUSKBN0MQ1V820150330
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 02:29:27 PM
How do you feel about Honey Baked Ham(tm)?
abomination
I don't like sweet meat either but then I don't associate that with breakfast.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
I could see McD's scaling back at some point, but going tits up? Just don't see that happening in my lifetime.
You say that, but just look what happened to National Milk Bars of Wales. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on March 31, 2015, 03:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
I could see McD's scaling back at some point, but going tits up? Just don't see that happening in my lifetime.
You say that, but just look what happened to National Milk Bars of Wales. :bowler:
Yeah, just look at what happened there. :mad:
:unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 02:03:13 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2015, 01:56:54 PM
With you there dude. Maple should be poured on to the sausage, not be in it already. :)
What was the name of that kid Scout invited home to lunch in To Kill a Mockingbird? :hmm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwln_HszMlY
:)
Quote from: Barrister on March 31, 2015, 03:04:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 31, 2015, 03:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 01:27:53 PM
I could see McD's scaling back at some point, but going tits up? Just don't see that happening in my lifetime.
You say that, but just look what happened to National Milk Bars of Wales. :bowler:
Yeah, just look at what happened there. :mad:
:unsure:
Quote
One shop left as Aberystwyth National Milk Bar closes
By Carl Yapp
23 December 2010
National Milk Bars were once a common sight in Wales, and even The Beatles dropped in for a coffee at a branch on their way to the top, but the restaurants could soon be a thing of the past.
Customers appear to be shunning their frothy coffees, cream cakes and milk shakes in favour of more sophisticated and trendy coffee shops.
In recent years, the chain of 17 milk bars has dwindled to just one in Wales, in Rhyl. Aberystwyth's closed last Saturday and in recent weeks Welshpool's also shut.
The National Milk Bars (NMB) were founded by Willie Griffiths and his wife Florence, and they ran them successfully from the Woodlands farm in Forden, near Welshpool, for a number of years.
The couple decided early on that their future lay in milk, although they did not have much experience of dairy farming.
Willie Griffiths founded the National Milk Bars with his wife, Florence
Farming was Mr Griffiths's first love, but he enjoyed the challenge of business. On a trip to London in the early 1930s, he noticed the new phenomenon of milk bars, which had started in the United States.
Milk was being sold across smart counters for a few pennies a glass, so Mr Griffiths decided to provide an outlet in Wales.
The first NMB branch opened in Colwyn Bay in 1933, followed by Llandudno later that same year. Within a decade there were 10 NMBs, and to help supply them, Mr and Mrs Griffiths bought a milk depot and cheese factory in Four Crosses, near Welshpool.
The brand branched out into England, and in 1936 a milk bar opened in Birmingham and a year later there was one in Manchester too. Others followed in Liverpool, Shrewsbury and Oswestry.
The Beatles are even said to have met at the Liverpool bar.
........
full article here:
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
Wake me up when they serve burgers etc in the morning.
I'd be more interested in this from chains that make good burgers.
I know I've said it before...the egg mcmuffin is proof that Hod loves us, and wants us to be happy.
The egg-white version is pretty good too.
One of the cultural shocks I had when I stayed in Vancouver was the low opinion of locals toward McDonald's. In HK, McDonald's is still fast food, but enjoys a higher reputation for its food quality. Having stayed in Canada for a few years, I began to see why. Because you guys have a lot more competition when it comes to hamburgers, and other people do have better products. In HK, McDonald's is basically the only major chain that does hamburgers and fries. All the other major chains do Chinese rice boxes.
I think some of you underestimate McDonald's profitability in overseas markets.
Quote from: derspiess on March 31, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
On one or two occassions I actually had small bits of egg shell in my McMuffin, so definitely yeah.
Only the McMuffin uses real eggs. Everything else uses the milk jug egg substance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2015, 01:23:37 PM
A hundred clams says Mickeys is not dead in 10 years. Individual franchises maybe, but I can't see the parent company dying by then.
I want to buy a highly leveraged derivative that is long on Yi's side of the bet.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 31, 2015, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
Wake me up when they serve burgers etc in the morning.
I'd be more interested in this from chains that make good burgers.
Sometimes McD is all you have.
Quote from: Maximus on March 31, 2015, 02:26:57 PM
But it's not so much the maple as the fact that sweets don't belong on meat.
I thought the same, until I was finally introduced to the pure bliss that is chicken and waffles.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 31, 2015, 08:46:59 PM
One of the cultural shocks I had when I stayed in Vancouver was the low opinion of locals toward McDonald's. In HK, McDonald's is still fast food, but enjoys a higher reputation for its food quality. Having stayed in Canada for a few years, I began to see why. Because you guys have a lot more competition when it comes to hamburgers, and other people do have better products. In HK, McDonald's is basically the only major chain that does hamburgers and fries. All the other major chains do Chinese rice boxes.
I think some of you underestimate McDonald's profitability in overseas markets.
I don't think so. I'm looking at how McDonald's continues to see declines across markets and what article showed larger declines in Asia Pacific (particularly China) than global average decline.
Positive feelings about a brand are not worth much if people aren't buying.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2015, 02:17:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 31, 2015, 08:46:59 PM
One of the cultural shocks I had when I stayed in Vancouver was the low opinion of locals toward McDonald's. In HK, McDonald's is still fast food, but enjoys a higher reputation for its food quality. Having stayed in Canada for a few years, I began to see why. Because you guys have a lot more competition when it comes to hamburgers, and other people do have better products. In HK, McDonald's is basically the only major chain that does hamburgers and fries. All the other major chains do Chinese rice boxes.
I think some of you underestimate McDonald's profitability in overseas markets.
I don't think so. I'm looking at how McDonald's continues to see declines across markets and what article showed larger declines in Asia Pacific (particularly China) than global average decline.
Not sure what year you are looking at. There was a major scandal involving a McDonald's supplier in Shanghai last year. Apparently they used...substandard ingredients. In HK in particular, the top management came out and swore that they didn't source from the problematic factory. HK McDonald's apparently demanded editing rights of HK government's press releases. My colleagues over at Food refused, then announced that HK McDonald's imported hundreds of tons of stuff from that factory.
Apparently sales took a hit last year.
Warsaw is now going through its burger phase (after Thai food places, sushi joints and steak houses of yore, every corner restaurant now boasts an overpriced "house style burger") so McDonald's is considered shit.
Quote from: Martinus on April 01, 2015, 03:13:48 AM
Warsaw is now going through its burger phase (after Thai food places, sushi joints and steak houses of yore, every corner restaurant now boasts an overpriced "house style burger") so McDonald's is considered shit.
We had that phase 2 years ago, it doesn't go away.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 03:11:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2015, 02:17:40 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 31, 2015, 08:46:59 PM
One of the cultural shocks I had when I stayed in Vancouver was the low opinion of locals toward McDonald's. In HK, McDonald's is still fast food, but enjoys a higher reputation for its food quality. Having stayed in Canada for a few years, I began to see why. Because you guys have a lot more competition when it comes to hamburgers, and other people do have better products. In HK, McDonald's is basically the only major chain that does hamburgers and fries. All the other major chains do Chinese rice boxes.
I think some of you underestimate McDonald's profitability in overseas markets.
I don't think so. I'm looking at how McDonald's continues to see declines across markets and what article showed larger declines in Asia Pacific (particularly China) than global average decline.
Not sure what year you are looking at. There was a major scandal involving a McDonald's supplier in Shanghai last year. Apparently they used...substandard ingredients. In HK in particular, the top management came out and swore that they didn't source from the problematic factory. HK McDonald's apparently demanded editing rights of HK government's press releases. My colleagues over at Food refused, then announced that HK McDonald's imported hundreds of tons of stuff from that factory.
Apparently sales took a hit last year.
Sales are on a continued decline in most markets. That's why McDonald's is putting together a series of gimmicky marketing events and then trying out different things in different marks to try and shore up flagging sales. I'd rather trust those than your perceptions that McD's is faring great overseas. ;)
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2015, 05:44:57 AM
Sales are on a continued decline in most markets. That's why McDonald's is putting together a series of gimmicky marketing events and then trying out different things in different marks to try and shore up flagging sales. I'd rather trust those than your perceptions that McD's is faring great overseas. ;)
I am doing my part to help the company. Ever since their food safety scandal broke, I have increased my frequency of eating there. I also specifically ordered stuff that other people avoid (McNuggets) due to the scandal.
I won't touch their stocks though.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:00:24 AM
I also specifically ordered stuff that other people avoid (McNuggets) due to the scandal.
You need Chick-fil-A.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 01, 2015, 06:03:27 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:00:24 AM
I also specifically ordered stuff that other people avoid (McNuggets) due to the scandal.
You need Chick-fil-A.
They are homophobic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 01, 2015, 06:03:27 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:00:24 AM
I also specifically ordered stuff that other people avoid (McNuggets) due to the scandal.
You need Chick-fil-A.
There are no Chick-fil-As in Hong Kong. At least, no outlet near where I frequent.
There was a time when I prayed that every commercial enterprise in the world would be a McDonald's. So the only bank in the world is McBank, the only power company in the world is McPower, all the fighter jets will be built by McPlanes etc.
Quote from: Liep on April 01, 2015, 04:38:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 01, 2015, 03:13:48 AM
Warsaw is now going through its burger phase (after Thai food places, sushi joints and steak houses of yore, every corner restaurant now boasts an overpriced "house style burger") so McDonald's is considered shit.
We had that phase 2 years ago, it doesn't go away.
Yeah, I think it started here about 2-3 years ago, as well.
Still, for the last 10 years, my favourite lunch place has been Mrs. Wanda's homemade diner - it is an establishment located in an old town house flat, existing since 1950s, and ran by two sisters who are now in their 60s (and inherited it from their aunt). It is open only on weekdays from noon till 5 p.m., there are usually just about 3 soups and 5 main courses (plus the obligatory compote) on the menu (which changes daily and is meticulously caligraphed in two copies on lined paper sheets) and you are supposed to eat and get the hell out within 15 minutes or so. Despite not being the cheapest (around 10 euro for a two-course meal) it is extremely popular with local professionals as well as pensioners (who are able to take "half portions" of everything).
Probably you. I've actually been posting somewhat less recently. :)
My question still stands though. A great many organizations have some connection to homophobia, so are we supposed to keep a list and boycott all of those that we know of? No matter on those that we don't know of, or should we actively be researching?
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:09:50 AM
There was a time when I prayed that every commercial enterprise in the world would be a McDonald's. So the only bank in the world is McBank, the only power company in the world is McPower, all the fighter jets will be built by McPlanes etc.
Explain why.
Quote from: garbon on April 01, 2015, 06:46:52 AM
Probably you. I've actually been posting somewhat less recently. :)
My question still stands though. A great many organizations have some connection to homophobia, so are we supposed to keep a list and boycott all of those that we know of? No matter on those that we don't know of, or should we actively be researching?
I think it's everybody's decision and how far they want to go about it. I try not to give money to corporations that actively support (e.g. with donations) NGOs or causes that I oppose. It's a bit different when you just have corporations whose owners/CEOs make dumb comments (as was the case with D&G - not that I wear D&G in the first place).
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:09:50 AM
There was a time when I prayed that every commercial enterprise in the world would be a McDonald's. So the only bank in the world is McBank, the only power company in the world is McPower, all the fighter jets will be built by McPlanes etc.
Explain why.
One China, One Government, One Company.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 01, 2015, 06:09:50 AM
There was a time when I prayed that every commercial enterprise in the world would be a McDonald's. So the only bank in the world is McBank, the only power company in the world is McPower, all the fighter jets will be built by McPlanes etc.
Explain why.
I think it is most efficient for one giant private for-profit conglomerate that has 100% vertical and horizontal integration to provide humanity's needs. Less duplication of resources. McDonald's happened to be my favourite company for awhile. I think it went - McDonald's - IBM - Microsoft - Goldman Sachs.
Monopolies are typically not terribly efficient Mono.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 08:27:55 AM
Monopolies are typically not terribly efficient Mono.
Yeah, I agree :(
The Chick-fil-A rant dude is still having trouble finding work: http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-cfo-unemployed-after-chick-fil-a-rant-2015-3
Poor guy. :(
I feel bad for his family.
I had Chick-Fil-A for breakfast. :)
MMMMMMMMMMM, "Homophobia" is delicious.
There are actually a few White Spots in HK. I loved them in Vancouver and I am surprised that they have decided to come here. They market themselves as upmarket here, with each hamburger meal being about 3 times as expensive as a McDonald's meal.
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
Not to mention the lack of kosherness.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
Not to mention the lack of kosherness.
Some mcdonalds are kosher.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
Not to mention the lack of kosherness.
Just go for Halal instead.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2015, 10:05:31 AM
I had Chick-Fil-A for breakfast. :)
MMMMMMMMMMM, "Homophobia" is delicious.
chicken minis? :w00t:
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
'Murica!
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
Or they could just be in denial. Obesity tends to sneak up on you, and the same applies to people you see every day.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
I weigh 270 (but I am 6' at least) so I guess I don't have that much room to talk, but when I go into a McDonalds and see a 400 pound chick sitting there I often think "How can anyone let themselves go that far?" :hmm:
Have you blubbered up since we met? I wouldn't have guessed 270.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2015, 12:50:17 PM
Have you blubbered up since we met? I wouldn't have guessed 270.
I've probably lost 30 pounds since we met. I have a very wide frame (like, linebacker wide). When I was in high school I would say I looked 'thin' aside from a bit of a gut, and I was 220 then.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
I weigh 270 (but I am 6' at least) so I guess I don't have that much room to talk, but when I go into a McDonalds and see a 400 pound chick sitting there I often think "How can anyone let themselves go that far?" :hmm:
Nice humblebrag Mr. Svelte.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 12:46:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
Or they could just be in denial. Obesity tends to sneak up on you, and the same applies to people you see every day.
Not sure what the practical difference is between being in denial about being over weight and considering it to be normal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:55:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 12:46:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
Or they could just be in denial. Obesity tends to sneak up on you, and the same applies to people you see every day.
Not sure what the practical difference is between being in denial about being over weight and considering it to be normal.
:unsure:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
I weigh 270 (but I am 6' at least) so I guess I don't have that much room to talk, but when I go into a McDonalds and see a 400 pound chick sitting there I often think "How can anyone let themselves go that far?" :hmm:
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:55:18 PM
Not sure what the practical difference is between being in denial about being over weight and considering it to be normal.
The difference is between not realizing you're fat, and thinking it's okay to be fat.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:55:18 PM
Not sure what the practical difference is between being in denial about being over weight and considering it to be normal.
The difference is between not realizing you're fat, and thinking it's okay to be fat.
I hate to go all Grumbler on you, but isn't thinking being fat is normal also not realizing you are fat - eg people who are more fat then normal are the fat ones not me...
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
I hate to go all Grumbler on you, but isn't thinking being fat is normal also not realizing you are fat - eg people who are more fat then normal are the fat ones not me...
I don't see it that way. One error is about what is normal, and what is not. The other error is about where you personally fall on the scale of normality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:26:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 10:13:03 AM
I don't eat fast food.
Fast food is for phat piple.
I have to say that, on the rare occasions that I do go into the McDonald's in my town, I'm often embarrassed to find myself the thinnest person there. :bleeding:
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
Not denying that thesis, but there could be another reasonable explaination - that is, parents who have an unusually skewed view of what "fat" is, will be more likely to willingly allow or encourage their kids to over-eat and so become overweight.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 01:20:35 PM
I hate to go all Grumbler on you, but isn't thinking being fat is normal also not realizing you are fat - eg people who are more fat then normal are the fat ones not me...
I don't see it that way. One error is about what is normal, and what is not. The other error is about where you personally fall on the scale of normality.
"I'm okay, you're too fat" - The Simpsons ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:24:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2015, 10:05:31 AM
I had Chick-Fil-A for breakfast. :)
MMMMMMMMMMM, "Homophobia" is delicious.
chicken minis? :w00t:
just a chicken biscuit sammich.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 12:48:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:39:45 PM
I heard a news report the other day that when the parents of over 200 obese kids were asked whether their children were "over weight" only the parents of 4 of those children answered "yes". The researchers concluded that so many people are now overweight that being overweight is now considered normal.
I weigh 270 (but I am 6' at least) so I guess I don't have that much room to talk, but when I go into a McDonalds and see a 400 pound chick sitting there I often think "How can anyone let themselves go that far?" :hmm:
:o 270? How can you even walk? Or see your penis without using a mirror?
Me and my wife together do not weight 270....
Actually we do. I weight 190 and she weights 110, so 300 flat between the two.
Still Cal, your a fat mothefucker.
You should get offended and use the hatred as motivation to do 1500 calories diet with a 1000 burn out work out.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
Losing weight and staying normal is easy. You just have to want to do it.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
T-shirts that say "NO FAT CHICKS" would probably be a good start.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
For one thing people should stop thinking that only a ridiculously small percentage of the population can lose weight and keep it off. It is really a simple matter of eating less even if one isn't prepared to increase their physical activity. There may be a ridiculously small percentage for whom eating less calories might not work but surely not the majority if the majority were not fat in the past.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 02:29:19 PM
:o 270? How can you even walk? Or see your penis without using a mirror?
Me and my wife together do not weight 270....
Actually we do. I weight 190 and she weights 110, so 300 flat between the two.
Still Cal, your a fat mothefucker.
You should get offended and use the hatred as motivation to do 1500 calories diet with a 1000 burn out work out.
You are right to try to shame me. That is, in fact, a motivation to lose weight, which I agree that I should do and have been doing. :)
edit: btw I can see my schlong just fine and can not only walk, but also run which I do on a treadmill at least once a week if not more. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
For one thing people should stop thinking that only a ridiculously small percentage of the population can lose weight and keep it off. It is really a simple matter of eating less even if one isn't prepared to increase their physical activity. There may be a ridiculously small percentage for whom eating less calories might not work but surely not the majority if the majority were not fat in the past.
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
I disagree. To lose weight and stay in weight the only thing you need is to make your diet and work out routine a way of life.
The human body was made for WAR, and if you think you can live your life seating in front of a computer, you are sadly mistaken.
Do cardio every day, not the same cardio, but cardio from Monday to Friday, for a full hour, and then another hour of upper body and core exercises. With a 1500 to 2000 calori diet, you will be one mean mothefuckar in no time.
I would modify what cc said to say "it's a simple matter, but also hard." I suspect most people who are morbidly obese are food addicts. It's like saying to an alcoholic "Hey, you should just quit drinking." If only it were that easy.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
For one thing people should stop thinking that only a ridiculously small percentage of the population can lose weight and keep it off. It is really a simple matter of eating less even if one isn't prepared to increase their physical activity. There may be a ridiculously small percentage for whom eating less calories might not work but surely not the majority if the majority were not fat in the past.
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
:huh: Because they don't want to.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
Dysfunctional relationship with food.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
Well, assuming your article is accurate:
QuoteIf valid and reproducible however, their results bring up the likelihood that weight loss in and of itself doesn't come with the fanfare often expected of it. And if weight loss isn't making people happy, that could explain, at least in part, why many people struggle to keep weight off. "This could definitely contribute to the notoriously poor success people have with maintaining their new lower body weight after achieving significant weight loss," Jackson says. "If people do not find the benefits of being slimmer outweigh the costs involved in maintaining this, then they may slip back into old ways."
Clearly, the problem is that the overweight are simply
not shamed enough. :P If we as a society made them truly miserable, they would gain more happiness from losing weight, and so be more likely to do so! :D
But more seriously - losing weight and keeping it off long-term is damned hard in our society, because so many common entertainments and social rituals are built around eating. It is like trying to quit smoking in a society in which sharing a cigar is the most common sign of good manners.
In my experience it is pretty easy for someone of willpower to lose weight reasonably quickly - by sticking to a specific diet and avoiding temptations. Thing is, you have to basically announce to the world that you are doing it - no participation in dinners, no going to birthday parties, etc. etc.
However, keeping weight off isn't so simple - it requires a permanent lifestyle change. You can't think of it as "dieting", but actually change your habits so you eat sensibly all the time. If you fail to do this, you just gain all that carefully-lost weight back again.
Changing one's basic eating habits is hard - much harder than "dieting". You have to stop thinking in the same way about your lifestyle.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 02:29:19 PM
:o 270? How can you even walk? Or see your penis without using a mirror?
Me and my wife together do not weight 270....
Actually we do. I weight 190 and she weights 110, so 300 flat between the two.
Still Cal, your a fat mothefucker.
You should get offended and use the hatred as motivation to do 1500 calories diet with a 1000 burn out work out.
You are right to try to shame me. That is, in fact, a motivation to lose weight, which I agree that I should do and have been doing. :)
edit: btw I can see my schlong just fine and can not only walk, but also run which I do on a treadmill at least once a week if not more. :P
Once a week?
No wonder your are fat.
Do this little work out:
Cardio every day. One full hour. Do not get off the damn treadmill until you complete one hour. You can start easy to condition your body, but increase the speed per work out. Monday to Friday.
Monday - One hour treadmill - Start walking about 1 quarter mile, then run as fast as you can for two miles. After this, you can alternate running and walking until you complete the hour. I burn 1100 calories in one hour in the treadmill. You should burn at least 500 an hour to start. Do all your running while keeping the treadmill flat. Do not use hill simulation until your second month.
Tuesday - One hour on the eliptical. Start at resistance level 10, anything less is just walking and lying to yourself. Start slow, and then do quarter mile springs. The eliptical machine is low impact, which means your knees don't get all fucked up for running every day.
Wednesday - Repeat Monday's treadmill, increase speed.
Thursday - Repeat Tuesday's elyptical, increase resistance.
Friday - Repeat Treadmill, increase speed.
Your goal should be 1000 calories in one hour running, 800 calories in one hour elyptical.
Everyday your second hour should be upper body and core work out.
Do push up and sit up drills. You need to do pull ups too.
My favor work out is 5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, and 25 air squads. Repeatx10
Easy and fast.
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2015, 03:10:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
For one thing people should stop thinking that only a ridiculously small percentage of the population can lose weight and keep it off. It is really a simple matter of eating less even if one isn't prepared to increase their physical activity. There may be a ridiculously small percentage for whom eating less calories might not work but surely not the majority if the majority were not fat in the past.
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
:huh: Because they don't want to.
I would say because they don't have the discipline.
That's why they say it does not conduct to happiness, because for some people discipline is not happiness.
It comes to character. Being fat is to be weak of character.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:25:39 PM
Once a week?
No wonder your are fat.
Do this little work out:
Cardio every day. One full hour. Do not get off the damn treadmill until you complete one hour. You can start easy to condition your body, but increase the speed per work out. Monday to Friday.
Monday - One hour treadmill - Start walking about 1 quarter mile, then run as fast as you can for two miles. After this, you can alternate running and walking until you complete the hour. I burn 1100 calories in one hour in the treadmill. You should burn at least 500 an hour to start. Do all your running while keeping the treadmill flat. Do not use hill simulation until your second month.
Tuesday - One hour on the eliptical. Start at resistance level 10, anything less is just walking and lying to yourself. Start slow, and then do quarter mile springs. The eliptical machine is low impact, which means your knees don't get all fucked up for running every day.
Wednesday - Repeat Monday's treadmill, increase speed.
Thursday - Repeat Tuesday's elyptical, increase resistance.
Friday - Repeat Treadmill, increase speed.
Your goal should be 1000 calories in one hour running, 800 calories in one hour elyptical.
Everyday your second hour should be upper body and core work out.
Do push up and sit up drills. You need to do pull ups too.
My favor work out is 5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, and 25 air squads. Repeatx10
Easy and fast.
You have to understand Siege, he has a job, he's not like you and me living off the government dime.
Fat shaming is all well and good, but society needs a lot more stupid shaming. Democracy made people think that just because their vote has value their opinions have intellectual value. Newsflash, morans: they don't!
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 03:10:36 PM
I would modify what cc said to say "it's a simple matter, but also hard." I suspect most people who are morbidly obese are food addicts. It's like saying to an alcoholic "Hey, you should just quit drinking." If only it were that easy.
Yeah, I concede that point. If it was easy to do the right thing we wouldn't have this epidemic of obesity.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2015, 03:28:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:25:39 PM
Once a week?
No wonder your are fat.
Do this little work out:
Cardio every day. One full hour. Do not get off the damn treadmill until you complete one hour. You can start easy to condition your body, but increase the speed per work out. Monday to Friday.
Monday - One hour treadmill - Start walking about 1 quarter mile, then run as fast as you can for two miles. After this, you can alternate running and walking until you complete the hour. I burn 1100 calories in one hour in the treadmill. You should burn at least 500 an hour to start. Do all your running while keeping the treadmill flat. Do not use hill simulation until your second month.
Tuesday - One hour on the eliptical. Start at resistance level 10, anything less is just walking and lying to yourself. Start slow, and then do quarter mile springs. The eliptical machine is low impact, which means your knees don't get all fucked up for running every day.
Wednesday - Repeat Monday's treadmill, increase speed.
Thursday - Repeat Tuesday's elyptical, increase resistance.
Friday - Repeat Treadmill, increase speed.
Your goal should be 1000 calories in one hour running, 800 calories in one hour elyptical.
Everyday your second hour should be upper body and core work out.
Do push up and sit up drills. You need to do pull ups too.
My favor work out is 5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, and 25 air squads. Repeatx10
Easy and fast.
You have to understand Siege, he has a job, he's not like you and me living off the government dime.
I wake up every day at 0430, Im at work at 0530 for the daily stupid meeting and accountability, after 0630 first formation, I go and do my two hour work out. At 0830 I go and shower and breakfast. At 0930 regular work/train to 1130. Lunch 1130 to 1300, then work/train to 1700.
This is a regular day. A range day, at 0930 we move to the range, no organized breaks, eat when you can while reloading ammo, keep training to about1600, then move back to the Company.
If I can fucking do it he can.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
BB, that article doesn't say that people cant lose weight. It was about whether people who lose weight are happier and uses some pretty strained logic to conclude that it isn't necessarily the case.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:59:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 02:33:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 02:27:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 01:32:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
A friend of mine recently returned from a cruise. That was also his observation. There were large (no pun intended) numbers of obese people 300 lbs plus who engaged in non stop eating the whole cruise. They made up at least 50% of the people on the cruise. His theory is that cruises are one of the few remaining places where fat people can eat as much as they want without others judging them. Its just what people do on a cruise. I suppose McDonalds is something like that.
I've never been on a cruise but I've heard that also... and for the record I am strongly opposed to the whole 'fat acceptance' movement. Morbid obesity is a disease much like alcoholism with similar debilitating effects and social repercussions, and we absolutely should not 'accept' it just like we don't 'accept' alcoholism. We don't shun and reject alcoholics, we support them and try to help them change... so should be the same with foodaholics :)
This is well off-topic, but I totally disagree with you. Studies have shown that a ridiculously small percentage of people are able to lose significant amounts of weight and keep the weight off (I seem to recall 5%) - and at 6 foot, 270 pounds, I suspect you might know a thing or two about that. What we should do is encourage healthy eating and lifestyles, and not worry about numbers on a scale.
The problem is that a ridiculously large percentage of the population have become fat compared to historical norms.
That *is* a problem.
The question is - what do you do about it?
For one thing people should stop thinking that only a ridiculously small percentage of the population can lose weight and keep it off. It is really a simple matter of eating less even if one isn't prepared to increase their physical activity. There may be a ridiculously small percentage for whom eating less calories might not work but surely not the majority if the majority were not fat in the past.
Recent article in the Yilantic that's on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/weight-loss-doesnt-always-lead-to-happiness/387619/
So tell me - if it really is "a simple matter" in order to lose weight, then why don't most people lose weight?
Et tu, Beeb? :homestar:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 03:10:36 PM
I would modify what cc said to say "it's a simple matter, but also hard." I suspect most people who are morbidly obese are food addicts. It's like saying to an alcoholic "Hey, you should just quit drinking." If only it were that easy.
Yeah, I concede that point. If it was easy to do the right thing we wouldn't have this epidemic of obesity.
I think its a failure of society and the educational system. Kids do not even know what character is anymore.
They are all taught to do what they like, not what is right.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2015, 03:28:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:25:39 PM
Once a week?
No wonder your are fat.
Do this little work out:
Cardio every day. One full hour. Do not get off the damn treadmill until you complete one hour. You can start easy to condition your body, but increase the speed per work out. Monday to Friday.
Monday - One hour treadmill - Start walking about 1 quarter mile, then run as fast as you can for two miles. After this, you can alternate running and walking until you complete the hour. I burn 1100 calories in one hour in the treadmill. You should burn at least 500 an hour to start. Do all your running while keeping the treadmill flat. Do not use hill simulation until your second month.
Tuesday - One hour on the eliptical. Start at resistance level 10, anything less is just walking and lying to yourself. Start slow, and then do quarter mile springs. The eliptical machine is low impact, which means your knees don't get all fucked up for running every day.
Wednesday - Repeat Monday's treadmill, increase speed.
Thursday - Repeat Tuesday's elyptical, increase resistance.
Friday - Repeat Treadmill, increase speed.
Your goal should be 1000 calories in one hour running, 800 calories in one hour elyptical.
Everyday your second hour should be upper body and core work out.
Do push up and sit up drills. You need to do pull ups too.
My favor work out is 5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, and 25 air squads. Repeatx10
Easy and fast.
You have to understand Siege, he has a job, he's not like you and me living off the government dime.
I wake up every day at 0430, Im at work at 0530 for the daily stupid meeting and accountability, after 0630 first formation, I go and do my two hour work out. At 0830 I go and shower and breakfast. At 0930 regular work/train to 1130. Lunch 1130 to 1300, then work/train to 1700.
This is a regular day. A range day, at 0930 we move to the range, no organized breaks, eat when you can while reloading ammo, keep training to about1600, then move back to the Company.
If I can fucking do it he can.
Your work out is part of your regular work day. What about the guy who spends 12 hours away from home with work and commute, then has to fit the work out in?
QuoteLunch 1130 to 1300
90 minute lunch? :lol:
Quote from: sbr on April 01, 2015, 03:39:58 PM
What about the guy who spends 12 hours away from home with work and commute, then has to fit the work out in?
That guy is fucking WEAK! :mad:
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:38:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 03:33:51 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 03:10:36 PM
I would modify what cc said to say "it's a simple matter, but also hard." I suspect most people who are morbidly obese are food addicts. It's like saying to an alcoholic "Hey, you should just quit drinking." If only it were that easy.
Yeah, I concede that point. If it was easy to do the right thing we wouldn't have this epidemic of obesity.
I think its a failure of society and the educational system. Kids do not even know what character is anymore.
They are all taught to do what they like, not what is right.
I will go with you part way. I think it ties into another piece I heard on the CBC that scientists are beginning to think there is a link between a lack of exposure to the sun and the explosion of near sightedness. The thought had been that it has been caused by people staring at screens for so long each day but apparently they have controlled for that variable and they have concluded kids just don't get outside enough. ie they just don't get enough physical activity.
It's not a good idea to eat while handling ammo. Especially reloading mags that you just fired from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I will go with you part way. I think it ties into another piece I heard on the CBC that scientists are beginning to think there is a link between a lack of exposure to the sun and the explosion of near sightedness. The thought had been that it has been caused by people staring at screens for so long each day but apparently they have controlled for that variable and they have concluded kids just don't get outside enough. ie they just don't get enough physical activity.
Are there kids who don't like going outside? If there is daylight my kids insist on playing outside as much as possible.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:25:39 PM
Once a week?
No wonder your are fat.
Do this little work out:
Cardio every day. One full hour. Do not get off the damn treadmill until you complete one hour. You can start easy to condition your body, but increase the speed per work out. Monday to Friday.
Monday - One hour treadmill - Start walking about 1 quarter mile, then run as fast as you can for two miles. After this, you can alternate running and walking until you complete the hour. I burn 1100 calories in one hour in the treadmill. You should burn at least 500 an hour to start. Do all your running while keeping the treadmill flat. Do not use hill simulation until your second month.
Tuesday - One hour on the eliptical. Start at resistance level 10, anything less is just walking and lying to yourself. Start slow, and then do quarter mile springs. The eliptical machine is low impact, which means your knees don't get all fucked up for running every day.
Wednesday - Repeat Monday's treadmill, increase speed.
Thursday - Repeat Tuesday's elyptical, increase resistance.
Friday - Repeat Treadmill, increase speed.
Your goal should be 1000 calories in one hour running, 800 calories in one hour elyptical.
Everyday your second hour should be upper body and core work out.
Do push up and sit up drills. You need to do pull ups too.
My favor work out is 5 pull ups, 10 dips, 15 elevated push ups, 20 sit ups, and 25 air squads. Repeatx10
Easy and fast.
Thank you. Good stuff. Right now I use the treadmill at the gym whenever I go and then switch to lifting. I usually use the treadmill for 30 mins (which I agree isn't enough) and then lift for the next 30. I typically use machines and my arms have gotten much bigger over the past year... so much so that my shirts are almost always tight through the arms/sleeves. :cool:
Quote from: The Brain on April 01, 2015, 03:42:07 PM
QuoteLunch 1130 to 1300
90 minute lunch? :lol:
In the Army?
Fuck yeah. Add all the hours, from 0530 when I report to 1700.
Even taking out breakfast and lunch, 90 minutes each, we still work for 11.5 hours daily.
Then we do night shooting ranges, sometimes completely overnight, sometimes to about 0200 in the morning next day.
Then we deploy, and work 24/7 in a shithole far from our families.
And we also go to schools, sometimes 30 days away from home.
So don't give me shit for my 90 minutes lunch. This aint a normal job.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2015, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I will go with you part way. I think it ties into another piece I heard on the CBC that scientists are beginning to think there is a link between a lack of exposure to the sun and the explosion of near sightedness. The thought had been that it has been caused by people staring at screens for so long each day but apparently they have controlled for that variable and they have concluded kids just don't get outside enough. ie they just don't get enough physical activity.
Are there kids who don't like going outside? If there is daylight my kids insist on playing outside as much as possible.
I dunno - I remember being told "go outside and play" more than a few times as a kid.
So I'd just take whatever book I was reading and read it outside. :)
I played outside a lot when I was a younger kid, but as soon as I got a computer, all I ever wanted to do was play it and program it. That lasted till college, pretty much. :blush:
DAMN YOU COMMODORE BUSINESS MACHINES! *shakes fist*
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 01, 2015, 03:55:12 PM
It's not a good idea to eat while handling ammo. Especially reloading mags that you just fired from.
I have ate in the middle of firefights. Low intensity firefights, of course.
But I got your drift. It was a matter of speaking.
Reload first, then eat.
Priorities of work.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 03:36:36 PM
You have to understand Siege, he has a job, he's not like you and me living off the government dime.
I wake up every day at 0430, Im at work at 0530 for the daily stupid meeting and accountability, after 0630 first formation, I go and do my two hour work out. At 0830 I go and shower and breakfast. At 0930 regular work/train to 1130. Lunch 1130 to 1300, then work/train to 1700.
This is a regular day. A range day, at 0930 we move to the range, no organized breaks, eat when you can while reloading ammo, keep training to about1600, then move back to the Company.
If I can fucking do it he can.
[/quote]
I mean a real job. Your job is to work out. People expect him to do real work, you know, making money and stuff. If he doesn't do his job well, he could lose it. If you don't do your job well, then Cal has to pay more in taxes to figure out why you can't do you job properly.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2015, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2015, 03:47:21 PM
I will go with you part way. I think it ties into another piece I heard on the CBC that scientists are beginning to think there is a link between a lack of exposure to the sun and the explosion of near sightedness. The thought had been that it has been caused by people staring at screens for so long each day but apparently they have controlled for that variable and they have concluded kids just don't get outside enough. ie they just don't get enough physical activity.
Are there kids who don't like going outside? If there is daylight my kids insist on playing outside as much as possible.
I know, weird right.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-myopia-boom-1.17120
I'm very nearsighted but it runs in my family a few generations.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2015, 04:31:49 PM
I'm very nearsighted but it runs in my family a few generations.
You would seem to be amongst the small percentage of the population for whom it is genetic.
IM SPECIAL YAYYYYY
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
Quote from: derspiess on April 01, 2015, 04:31:49 PM
I'm very nearsighted but it runs in my family a few generations.
That explains quite a bit actually.
Go on.
It's connected to the War Powers Act.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
You don't have to exercise to lose weight, but I think it's highly advisable to exercise if you are trying to lose weight anyway. Why? Because if you burn calories it will help you lose weight faster and also if you're building muscle, your muscles need more energy which will compound things. Also, I think most people find it fun (sometimes much to their surprise) and it's better to have fun doing physical stuff than watching TV.
Exercise-fun! :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 05:28:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
You don't have to exercise to lose weight, but I think it's highly advisable to exercise if you are trying to lose weight anyway. Why? Because if you burn calories it will help you lose weight faster and also if you're building muscle, your muscles need more energy which will compound things. Also, I think most people find it fun (sometimes much to their surprise) and it's better to have fun doing physical stuff than watching TV.
I agree that exercising while attempting to lose weight is a very good idea (hell, it's a good idea to exercise when you are not) ... but the "heavy lifting" of weight loss ( ;)) should, for most folks, be watching what you eat. Most people simply cannot reliably exercise enough to meaningfully lose weight doing it.
Quote from: Malthus on April 01, 2015, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 05:28:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
You don't have to exercise to lose weight, but I think it's highly advisable to exercise if you are trying to lose weight anyway. Why? Because if you burn calories it will help you lose weight faster and also if you're building muscle, your muscles need more energy which will compound things. Also, I think most people find it fun (sometimes much to their surprise) and it's better to have fun doing physical stuff than watching TV.
I agree that exercising while attempting to lose weight is a very good idea (hell, it's a good idea to exercise when you are not) ... but the "heavy lifting" of weight loss ( ;)) should, for most folks, be watching what you eat. Most people simply cannot reliably exercise enough to meaningfully lose weight doing it.
Also I think that people fool themselves into thinking that they can eat more because they are exercising. But it takes a lot more exercise than they think to burn the extra calories.
That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate). It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories. :D
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 05:51:32 PM
That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate). It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories. :D
Ironically I have the opposite problem with my oldest son. He often underestimates how much he needs to eat during the day to fuel his training regime and he often ends up being too tired to eat at the end of the day.
I've actually been getting more exercise lately. They started this running group at the Psychiatrists office, and let me tell you, when you see a pack of jabbering maniacs behind you, you run fast!
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
This. I lost about 20 lbs gradually over the past 1.5 years from simple dietary adjustments, and I don't do any "formal" exercise whatsoever, beyond trying to go for a daily walk or taking the stairs instead of the escalators at malls and whatnaught.
I don't know. Raz's "Chased by lunatics" system could revolutionize the exercise industry.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2015, 06:01:41 PM
I've actually been getting more exercise lately. They started this running group at the Psychiatrists office, and let me tell you, when you see a pack of jabbering maniacs behind you, you run fast!
I just got the picture of the dream team.
L to R; Grumbler, Seedy, Raz, and Ed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages5.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F29900000%2FThe-Dream-Team-christopher-lloyd-29944459-500-369.jpg&hash=c4348ff1157043223c6fd18928880dbffe488dc4)
As long as I ain't Flounder.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2015, 07:43:41 PM
As long as I ain't Flounder.
You are more of a Lumiere these days. "oui oui, madame. enchante." etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 01, 2015, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2015, 06:01:41 PM
I've actually been getting more exercise lately. They started this running group at the Psychiatrists office, and let me tell you, when you see a pack of jabbering maniacs behind you, you run fast!
I just got the picture of the dream team.
L to R; Grumbler, Seedy, Raz, and Ed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages5.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F29900000%2FThe-Dream-Team-christopher-lloyd-29944459-500-369.jpg&hash=c4348ff1157043223c6fd18928880dbffe488dc4)
:lmfao:
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
This is why it's more important to focus on health, and not numbers on a scale.
People should exercise because it's healthy and good for them. Just cutting back on calories and losing weight isn't actually getting you any healthier than you were being fat if you are still eating junk (though less of it) and not exercising.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 10:22:46 PM
This is why it's more important to focus on health, and not numbers on a scale.
Sounds nice in theory, but in practice, that's just a blah-blah excuse for ignoring the numbers on a scale. And numbers on a scale do have an effect on your health, even with all else being the same.
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 10:22:46 PM
This is why it's more important to focus on health, and not numbers on a scale.
Sounds nice in theory, but in practice, that's just a blah-blah excuse for ignoring the numbers on a scale. And numbers on a scale do have an effect on your health, even with all else being the same.
You can focus on numbers that reflect fitness. Say a combination of how many pull ups you can do, how many crunches in a time period, and how long it takes you to run a certain distance. Say like the fitness test used by the marines.
It has been my experience that in this culture you have to work at it or you will be fat. I just remember how weird it was to go to France, basically do the same shit I did here, and drop weight like nobody's business. So it does not surprise me alot of people are obese, they are just doing what is normal.
Our agricultural past leads to celebrate most major occasions with food. That is a biggie. Another is we are often too busy to really think about what we eat. It is a constant struggle for me, I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact I am going to be going to weight watchers my whole life. Got to make a point to exercise and all that. I am just a tad annoyed that it requires that much effort for me to live here and not be overweight. If only I had a crazy hobby like Dorsey.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 08:24:40 AM
It has been my experience that in this culture you have to work at it or you will be fat. I just remember how weird it was to go to France, basically do the same shit I did here, and drop weight like nobody's business. So it does not surprise me alot of people are obese, they are just doing what is normal.
Our agricultural past leads to celebrate most major occasions with food. That is a biggie. Another is we are often too busy to really think about what we eat. It is a constant struggle for me, I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact I am going to be going to weight watchers my whole life. Got to make a point to exercise and all that. I am just a tad annoyed that it requires that much effort for me to live here and not be overweight. If only I had a crazy hobby like Dorsey.
How many major occasions do we have? I don't think it's a bigger, and it's a biggie only to extent that we feel comfortable with pure gluttony.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
How many major occasions do we have? I don't think it's a bigger, and it's a biggie only to extent that we feel comfortable with pure gluttony.
Any type of gathering means overeating.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
How many major occasions do we have? I don't think it's a bigger, and it's a biggie only to extent that we feel comfortable with pure gluttony.
Lots actually, but I do not really want to discuss that. But the point is that we are used to seeing consuming lots of food as what one does for celebratory occasions.
And you do not have to feel comfortable with pure gluttony to get fat, it also has to do with what you eat and your physical activity. It can sneak up on you slowly. I don't think it is a moral failing so much as just going along with what is normal. Which is why the obesity rate is so high. 60 years ago people were just as weak, we were just skinnier while being weak.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2015, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
How many major occasions do we have? I don't think it's a bigger, and it's a biggie only to extent that we feel comfortable with pure gluttony.
Any type of gathering means overeating.
Yep. For us sports fans this can simply mean 'Sunday during the Fall'
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 08:24:40 AM
It has been my experience that in this culture you have to work at it or you will be fat. I just remember how weird it was to go to France, basically do the same shit I did here, and drop weight like nobody's business. So it does not surprise me alot of people are obese, they are just doing what is normal.
Our agricultural past leads to celebrate most major occasions with food. That is a biggie. Another is we are often too busy to really think about what we eat. It is a constant struggle for me, I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact I am going to be going to weight watchers my whole life. Got to make a point to exercise and all that. I am just a tad annoyed that it requires that much effort for me to live here and not be overweight. If only I had a crazy hobby like Dorsey.
How many major occasions do we have? I don't think it's a bigger, and it's a biggie only to extent that we feel comfortable with pure gluttony.
Depending on how big your family is and how busy your social life is, there can be an astonishing number of events you are expected to attend that involve eating or drinking booze (which is mostly calories).
My son has six cousins, eight aunts and uncles, and four grandparents; We are expected to go to birthday dinners for each and every one of those (plus of course his own, and my wife's and mine); plus two sets of major holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.) each with their own dinners; and that's just obligations with family - there are often get-togethers over and above that. Then there are functions for work, which also involve dinners - dining with clients, dining with firm people; drinks and cocktail parties; after-work drinks on Friday; wine-tasting events; recruiting parties for incomming students; plus the firm of course hosts its own holiday parties.
Then there are events with friends.
Add all that up, and it amounts to a huge amount of unnecessary eating, unless you watch it. If you don't want to do the eating, the onus is on you to explain why you aren't having a piece of Aunty Maria's birthday cake (that she made herself), or why you won't share some drinks with collegues after work - "I'd love to, but I'm dieting".
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 10:22:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
This is why it's more important to focus on health, and not numbers on a scale.
People should exercise because it's healthy and good for them. Just cutting back on calories and losing weight isn't actually getting you any healthier than you were being fat if you are still eating junk (though less of it) and not exercising.
A fat person who eats too much healthy food is still fat. Being fat still has all of the health risks of being fat.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:01:02 AM
And you do not have to feel comfortable with pure gluttony to get fat, it also has to do with what you eat and your physical activity. It can sneak up on you slowly. I don't think it is a moral failing so much as just going along with what is normal. Which is why the obesity rate is so high. 60 years ago people were just as weak, we were just skinnier while being weak.
I'm talking about big occasions. For those to really be a significant factor in your fatness, you have to actively ignore your sense of fullness, and keep shoveling the food down your pie hole by truckloads. If you're capable of doing that, then it's an indication that your relationship with food is dysfunctional, and it manifests itself in other situations as well.
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I think the obesity epidemic has more to do with larger portion sizes, greater availability of and reliance on crappy processed foods, and perhaps a lack of self-control in eating that previous generations were taught as children.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:13:24 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:01:02 AM
And you do not have to feel comfortable with pure gluttony to get fat, it also has to do with what you eat and your physical activity. It can sneak up on you slowly. I don't think it is a moral failing so much as just going along with what is normal. Which is why the obesity rate is so high. 60 years ago people were just as weak, we were just skinnier while being weak.
I'm talking about big occasions. For those to really be a significant factor in your fatness, you have to actively ignore your sense of fullness, and keep shoveling the food down your pie hole by truckloads. If you're capable of doing that, then it's an indication that your relationship with food is dysfunctional, and it manifests itself in other situations as well.
Not really, no. All that is necessary is that the amount of calories you consume on those occasions be over the amount you require for that day. Even slightly over will do - assuming you are eating exactly what you require every other day.
Point is that it is cumulative over a very long period of time.
My anniversary is coming up (six years! Holy shit) and I was looking around at places we could go eat and I thought: 'why the hell are we going to go out for a dinner? We are both dieting. We should do something to celebrate besides eat'
And I discovered how weird that felt. Damn how do you celebrate without eating again? :blush:
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I would say that is certainly true. It is much easier to travel to attend such occasions now then it was at the turn of the last century.
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I think the obesity epidemic has more to do with larger portion sizes, greater availability of and reliance on crappy processed foods, and perhaps a lack of self-control in eating that previous generations were taught as children.
Fewer people worked at desks.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2015, 10:22:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2015, 04:48:49 PM
Exercise is good for your health in general, but the idea that you have to exercise to lose weight is highly disastrous for society's waistline. It makes people think it's harder to lose weight than it really is, so they don't even try (for long). It is more than sufficient for most people to merely eat properly, or more accurately to not eat improperly. Just cut 80% of the sugary shit out of your diet.
This is why it's more important to focus on health, and not numbers on a scale.
People should exercise because it's healthy and good for them. Just cutting back on calories and losing weight isn't actually getting you any healthier than you were being fat if you are still eating junk (though less of it) and not exercising.
I wouldn't rely solely on numbers on a scale. But there are all kinds of numbers, such as waist size, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, etc, which taken together can give one a pretty good indication of one's health.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:16:55 AM
My anniversary is coming up (six years! Holy shit) and I was looking around at places we could go eat and I thought: 'why the hell are we going to go out for a dinner? We are both dieting. We should do something to celebrate besides eat'
And I discovered how weird that felt. Damn how do you celebrate without eating again? :blush:
Agreed, food is a very important part of our social lives. Every significant event (and many insignificant events) are celebrated with food. Our main problem, imo, is that the type and amount of food we consume has changed.
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I think the obesity epidemic has more to do with larger portion sizes, greater availability of and reliance on crappy processed foods, and perhaps a lack of self-control in eating that previous generations were taught as children.
I agree that these are all factors, but the single greatest factor is that people 100 years ago did a very great deal more physical work in everyday life.
There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I think you are missing my point. It was appropriate to do that 50 and 100 years ago but our lives have changed and our traditions need to adapt. Hence why I made sure to mention the cultural roots of that practice.
QuoteI think the obesity epidemic has more to do with larger portion sizes, greater availability of and reliance on crappy processed foods, and perhaps a lack of self-control in eating that previous generations were taught as children.
Yes it has alot to do with the food we are provided and how our lifestyles have changed. And LOL at all the self control the previous generations had.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 10:18:56 AM
Our main problem, imo, is that the type and amount of food we consume has changed.
Yep, and our lifestyles. But in the past when we busted our ass to make that food (or buy it when it was very expensive to do so) it made sense we would mark a celebration by eating it. Now it doesn't.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
That's the way I grew up. The punishment was generally "you'll sit there until you finish that food!" so it wasn't like I was beaten or anything.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:14:28 AM
Did people have fewer social gatherings 50 or 100 years ago? :)
I think the obesity epidemic has more to do with larger portion sizes, greater availability of and reliance on crappy processed foods, and perhaps a lack of self-control in eating that previous generations were taught as children.
I agree that these are all factors, but the single greatest factor is that people 100 years ago did a very great deal more physical work in everyday life.
Yeah, probably true. To what extent do you think that is true for middle class people, however (who admittedly are less likely to be obese than working class people nowadays)?
Quote
There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
Since you're relying on anecdotal evidence... My grandmother recalled that, when she felt hungry after dinner, her parents told her, "great, then you'll be ready for breakfast tomorrow!" rather than letting her snack in the evening.
That's what self-control is, not making sure children eat all the vegetables on their dinner plate.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 10:18:56 AM
Our main problem, imo, is that the type and amount of food we consume has changed.
Yep, and our lifestyles. But in the past when we busted our ass to make that food (or buy it when it was very expensive to do so) it made sense we would mark a celebration by eating it. Now it doesn't.
Agreed.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:16:55 AM
My anniversary is coming up (six years! Holy shit) and I was looking around at places we could go eat and I thought: 'why the hell are we going to go out for a dinner? We are both dieting. We should do something to celebrate besides eat'
And I discovered how weird that felt. Damn how do you celebrate without eating again? :blush:
I don't think one night of indulging is going to ruin your diet. Wine and dine is just how people celebrate.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
Don't have to go back as far as your Grandmother. It was the same when I was growing up.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:16:06 AM
Not really, no. All that is necessary is that the amount of calories you consume on those occasions be over the amount you require for that day. Even slightly over will do - assuming you are eating exactly what you require every other day.
Point is that it is cumulative over a very long period of time.
Your food consumption is not an open loop system. There are a lot of factors that counter-balance each other, if you let them. Hunger, metabolism, energy level, and the type of food you eat, all those things are functions of each other.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
Your food consumption is not an open loop system. There are a lot of factors that counter-balance each other, if you let them. Hunger, metabolism, energy level, and the type of food you eat, all those things are functions of each other.
If you eat too much today, that's generally not going to give you a reduced appetite tomorrow.
Quote from: Liep on April 02, 2015, 10:23:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:16:55 AM
My anniversary is coming up (six years! Holy shit) and I was looking around at places we could go eat and I thought: 'why the hell are we going to go out for a dinner? We are both dieting. We should do something to celebrate besides eat'
And I discovered how weird that felt. Damn how do you celebrate without eating again? :blush:
I don't think one night of indulging is going to ruin your diet. Wine and dine is just how people celebrate.
Yeah, my rule of thumb is "your body remembers what you do most of the time."
Besides which, there are surely healthier options on the menus of most restaurants.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
Your food consumption is not an open loop system. There are a lot of factors that counter-balance each other, if you let them. Hunger, metabolism, energy level, and the type of food you eat, all those things are functions of each other.
Exactly. You have to be aware of it and take actions to not be fat. Which seems kind of backwards to me but I look forward to impressing people by merely not being overweight.
Quote from: frunk on April 02, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
That's the way I grew up. The punishment was generally "you'll sit there until you finish that food!" so it wasn't like I was beaten or anything.
I had to "clean my plate" when I was a kid. I try to make sure my kids eat everything on their plates, but that's mainly because I don't want them bugging me two hours later that they're hungry.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
Don't have to go back as far as your Grandmother. It was the same when I was growing up.
Again, I don't envision self control so much as "making sure you finish what's on your plate" as limiting snacking after meals or consumption of desserts or junk foods.
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:40:49 AM
Yeah, my rule of thumb is "your body remembers what you do most of the time."
Besides which, there are surely healthier options on the menus of most restaurants.
Yes if we go out to eat we will make sure it is on plan. You should not be cheating on your diet just a month or so in, especially since we intend for this to be a permanent change.
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:42:09 AM
Again, I don't envision self control so much as "making sure you finish what's on your plate" as limiting snacking after meals or consumption of desserts or junk foods.
Not things Americans of the 1960s were particularly famous for. :P
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:35:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:16:06 AM
Not really, no. All that is necessary is that the amount of calories you consume on those occasions be over the amount you require for that day. Even slightly over will do - assuming you are eating exactly what you require every other day.
Point is that it is cumulative over a very long period of time.
Your food consumption is not an open loop system. There are a lot of factors that counter-balance each other, if you let them. Hunger, metabolism, energy level, and the type of food you eat, all those things are functions of each other.
The point is that it is very easy to increase weight by small increments of eating more than your metabolism, activity level, etc. require. When you do that, your body stores the excess as fat, for later ... and continues to do so. It is not necessary to imitate Nero's Rome in gluttony.
The cure of course is to eat slightly
less that your body requires based on metabolism, activity level, etc.
I've done both, carefully keeping track of eating and exercise, and it "works", at least for me. If I slightly undereat, I reliably lose weight; if I slightly overeat, I reliably gain it.
Not sure why this should be controversial.
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:42:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 10:24:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
There was no tradition of teaching "self-control in eating" in the past. On the contrary, my parents' parents were basically made to eat as much as possible. My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
Don't have to go back as far as your Grandmother. It was the same when I was growing up.
Again, I don't envision self control so much as "making sure you finish what's on your plate" as limiting snacking after meals or consumption of desserts or junk foods.
Had nothing to do with self control. We were very active. I needed every calorie I took in and then some. Most days I ate 6 large meals and snacked in between. Malthus made the point best when he said that not only has the type of food we eat changed but our over all level of activity has also dramatically changed.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2015, 10:42:51 AM
Quote from: Camerus on April 02, 2015, 10:40:49 AM
Yeah, my rule of thumb is "your body remembers what you do most of the time."
Besides which, there are surely healthier options on the menus of most restaurants.
Yes if we go out to eat we will make sure it is on plan. You should not be cheating on your diet just a month or so in, especially since we intend for this to be a permanent change.
My diet plan allows for one meal a week off the plan (not to go hog-wild, but to eat an ordinary restaurant-type meal, with wine). This is factored in.
If the plan is too rigid, it may be too difficult to keep at long-term; it is dangerous to think of dieting as an activity seperate from ordinary life, rather than a permanent change in one's relationship to eating.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:44:03 AM
Not sure why this should be controversial.
It's controversial because it assumes that your body is a dumb container of calories. It's entirely up to your willpower to control all the inputs and all the outputs. That's a highly simplistic model of how your body works, and it's counter-productive. Thankfully, nutritional science is moving away from this claptrap.
If you respect your body and don't put shit food in it, and don't ignore your appetite or lack of it, your body will take care of itself (assuming, of course, that you don't have thyroid disorders and the like). Most of the time, it really is that simple. Personally, of all the people I know well enough to know their eating habits, I've never seen a gross exception to this rule.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:55:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:44:03 AM
Not sure why this should be controversial.
It's controversial because it assumes that your body is a dumb container of calories. It's entirely up to your willpower to control all the inputs and all the outputs. That's a highly simplistic model of how your body works, and it's counter-productive. Thankfully, nutritional science is moving away from this claptrap.
Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know,
works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. :huh:
QuoteIf you respect your body and don't put shit food in it, and don't ignore your appetite or lack of it, your body will take care of itself (assuming, of course, that you don't have thyroid disorders and the like). Most of the time, it really is that simple. Personally, of all the people I know well enough to know their eating habits, I've never seen a gross exception to this rule.
'Listen to your body'. :lol:
Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 10:55:25 AM
your body will take care of itself
If only that were true.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:51:28 AM
If the plan is too rigid, it may be too difficult to keep at long-term; it is dangerous to think of dieting as an activity seperate from ordinary life, rather than a permanent change in one's relationship to eating.
True but our plan is far from rigid. But it does require paying some attention. But even that minimal level of attention is a pretty big shift for us :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.
Yep. This is certainly untrue for my experience living here. Sadly.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. :huh:
From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work. It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.
Quote
Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.
Okay, if you say so.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 11:22:05 AM
From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work. It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.
So long as I am one of those people, I couldn't care less.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 05:51:32 PM
That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate). It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories. :D
Modern treadmills are accurate within 5%. You have to make sure you enter the correct amount for your body weight.
And I burn 1000 calories in under and hour. About 1100 in an hour to be exact.
The problem is that some people think that 4 MPH is running. That just the standard foot march speed in the infantry.
The minimum speed I recomend to catch your breath is 6 MPH, and only for about a quarter mile, because longer than that might affect negatively your knees and anckles. And 6 MPH breath catching should only be after you are done with your first two miles at combat speed.
And with the elyptical, I see people at the gym going really fast, but their resistance setting is like, under 5, so they will never burn 850 calories in one hour. They do one hour and got less than 200 calories burnt, because low resistance is just like walking.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. :huh:
From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work. It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.
Quote
Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.
Okay, if you say so.
Okay, so what -
besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
Huh? This "claptrap" actually, you know, works. As anyone can demonstrate for themselves by simply keeping track of their activity and what they eat. :huh:
From a systemic point of view, no, it doesn't work. It works for some people, but the requirements on willpower are both unrealistic and misguided.
Quote
Your theory seems to be that your body will take care of itself and that if you get overweight, you must be grossly abusing it and/or eating crap. This simply doesn't fit observed facts.
Okay, if you say so.
Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Don't worry about it. Your body knows what it is doing.
At least that is what I understood DGuller to be saying.
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cut sugar consumption drastically. Just stay away from it. That's the one substance that your hunger mechanism is completely ill-suited to regulate, and worse still, sugar consumption stimulates further appetite.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2015, 05:51:32 PM
That's why it's good to run on a treadmill that tells you how many calories you've burned (even though I concede those probably aren't that accurate). It's kind of eye opening to feel like you've busted your ass for a bit only to look at the display and see you've only burned 200 calories. :D
The classic story is the guy spending 25 minutes on an elliptical, burning 250 calories, drinking a recovery shake with 400 calories, and wondering why he isn't losing weight.
A few months ago I did a hot chocolate run that had both 5k and 15k. After the race you got a cup of hot chocolate, with chocolate covered pretzels and a banana that could be dipped in a cup of chocolate and marshmellows. Someone who ran the 5k almost certain ended up on the wrong end of the calorie burned/calories consumed divide. Even before drinking any sports drinks they had at all the water stations, which are loaded with calories.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2015, 10:41:30 AM
Quote from: frunk on April 02, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
My grandmother recalled that, when she was a kid, she would be punished if she left the table with uneaten food on her plate!
That's the way I grew up. The punishment was generally "you'll sit there until you finish that food!" so it wasn't like I was beaten or anything.
I had to "clean my plate" when I was a kid. I try to make sure my kids eat everything on their plates, but that's mainly because I don't want them bugging me two hours later that they're hungry.
We have to be sure to keep their unfinished plates of food off to the side because invariably they come up to us an hour later saying they're hungry (after barely even picking at their supper).
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 12:43:27 PM
Okay, so what - besides eating slightly less than required by your metabolism and activity level - is actually "realistic" and is "well-guided" from a "systemic point of view" for reducing weight to normal if one happens to be overweight?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cut sugar consumption drastically. Just stay away from it. That's the one substance that your hunger mechanism is completely ill-suited to regulate, and worse still, sugar consumption stimulates further appetite.
Getting rid of excess sugar is good advice. People in general eat way too much sugar, which tends to be hidden in all sorts of processed foods, leads to tooth decay, and excess calories.
However, the so-called "sugar busters diet" is based on a certain amount of pseudoscience - much less the claim that this is somehow more "realistic" and "well guided" than simply keeping note of what you eat.
http://www.betterhealthusa.com/public/252.cfm
http://www.webmd.boots.com/diet/sugar-busters-diet?page=2
QuoteHowever, nutritionists argue that their claim that sugar is toxic to the body is complete nonsense and that, although sugar has no nutritional value and counts as 'empty calories', it is in no way toxic. They also argue that this diet, although it has its advantages, cuts out far too many nutrients that are essential to our health, as well as healthy foods like potatoes and bread. There are also concerns about the high levels of protein encouraged in this diet. A review and analysis was carried out on the diet, led by UK Professor of Medicine and Clinical Nutrition at the College of Medicine, James Anderson, M.D. The study was published in The Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Anderson stated that Sugar Busters was one of several diets that condoned "...almost double the recommended daily allowance" of protein. He went on to say that: "This high protein load may lead to kidney damage."
Dieters that have tried this eating plan have given mixed reviews. Many said that the diet was easy to follow and provided them with plenty of energy as well as promoting a feeling of being full. However, on the downside, many dieters stated that the plan was difficult to stick to on a long-term basis, and could be quite time-consuming trying to find out about hidden sugars in everyday foods.
In summary - it is just another fad diet being peddled as the 'one true way' (of which there are
many). Like all the others, it can work, but it basically "works" exactly the same way as they generally do - by cutting down calories.
Did I say anything about "sugar busters" diet? Nice job demolishing that strawman. I have no idea why cutting out cola, fruit juices, or cakes should deprive you of bread. :blink:
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 02:58:26 PM
Did I say anything about "sugar busters" diet? Nice job demolishing that strawman. I have no idea why cutting out cola, fruit juices, or cakes should deprive you of bread. :blink:
Did you not read what was posted? The "sugar busters diet" is based on the claims you made, which are identified as pseudoscientific: namely, that cutting out sugar is the best diet method (because of "science"), and that there is, therefore, no need to "count calories", as amount of calories consumed is claimed not to be the key to weight gain or loss - cutting out sugar is because of "science" (ignoring the fact that the diet they then construct in effect restructs calories).
The fact that the authors then construct a whole diet around this (and one that is not necessarily internal consistent) is an irrelevance. It is the reasoning behind that diet which is dismissed - the actual diet, as identified, has its pros and cons (as do all such diets). Namely, that it is "scientific fact" that, because of how the human metabolism works, cutting sugars, not counting calories, is the "key" to weight loss.
Sure, some people argue that - as do the authors of this diet - but it would appear not to be widely accepted: it is just another bit of faddish food pseudoscience. Of which there is, literally, dozens of examples circulating - all intent on proving that they, and no others, have *the* secret to weight loss.
The truth: almost any diet will "work" if you stick with it.
The point is that "sticking with it" is an essential part of any diet, and not an external factor like you make it sound. A diet that works but requires a superhuman effort to stick with it really doesn't work in general.
As for the origins of advice to cut sugar, I'm really not interested in continuing a debate where I'm assigned an argument, and the focus switches to me having to distance myself from it.
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:24:03 PM
The point is that "sticking with it" is an essential part of any diet, and not an external factor like you make it sound. A diet that works but requires a superhuman effort to stick with it really doesn't work in general.
As for the origins of advice to cut sugar, I'm really not interested in continuing a debate where I'm assigned an argument, and the focus switches to me having to distance myself from it.
Why is it a "superhuman effort" to cut one's food intake to slightly below one's daily requirement - but
not a "superhuman effort" to completely cut sugar from one's diet? Sugar is in practically everything.
I'll tell you ths - it isn't hunger that makes dieting hard, it is habits. If you want a really sugar-free diet, you have to prepare practically everything yourself from raw ingredients, which is waaay harder than simply eating slightly less (something in my experience not really all that hard to do).
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less. I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try. In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less. I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try. In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.
Particularly if they come to believe that meaningfully losing weight requires eating no sugar. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2015, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less. I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try. In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.
Particularly if they come to believe that meaningfully losing weight requires eating no sugar. ;)
Agreed
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less. I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try. In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.
You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. :huh:
Of course they know they are fat. All they have to do is look in a mirror. Even if their friends and family are also fat, all they have to do is look at TV, movies, magazines, the internet - to be shown non-stop depictions of skinny people.
And they do try. I'm sure you've heard the phrase yo-yo dieting. They've tried diet after diet. They've lost weight for a time... only to see it creep back.
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2015, 03:49:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2015, 03:31:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
I think DGuller sums up the real problem with being fat. People normalize it and think that eating less takes feats of "superhuman" effort.
Real life outcomes show that "eat less, exercise more" diets at the very least take superaveragehuman effort. Humans are what they are, willpower and all.
I am not so sure people really attempt to eat less. I think that large numbers of people now think that being fat is normal and so see no reason to change or make excuses like "only a small percentage of people can lose weight" and so don't try. In short, our culture now accepts fat as the new normal.
You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. :huh:
I refer you back to the study that kicked this conversation off that parents of about 4 out of more than 200 obese kids thought their kids were over weight.
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2015, 03:49:35 PM
You have this bizarre notion that fat people don't realize that they are fat. :huh:
They may realize that their BMI is high, but they may think that they're built like linebackers, that the extra weight looks good on them, or some other excuse that would make BMI not applicable to their situation.
QuoteOf course they know they are fat. All they have to do is look in a mirror.
Mirrors don't actually work that well when the observer is also the observed. People have a great capacity for delusion or denial.
QuoteAnd they do try. I'm sure you've heard the phrase yo-yo dieting. They've tried diet after diet. They've lost weight for a time... only to see it creep back.
But yes, many people do try, and most fail.
Quote from: Siege on April 02, 2015, 12:12:03 PM
The minimum speed I recomend to catch your breath is 6 MPH, and only for about a quarter mile, because longer than that might affect negatively your knees and anckles. And 6 MPH breath catching should only be after you are done with your first two miles at combat speed.
As I recall from when you've posted your test results, 6 mph is about your normal pace. I don't know where you're getting this shit about slowing down to that after sprinting for 2 miles. Sure, if you're Roger Bannister.
Also, I doubt 6 mph is harder on the knees than 7-10 mph.
Negatron. My average speed right now is 7 MPH. My combat speed (2 miles) is 8 MPH, and my spring speed is 9 to 10 MPH, but I cannot sustain it for longer than a quater mile at a time.
6 MPH is way too slow (10 minutes per mile), so it is not a winning deal. Not to mention, the slower you run the more weight you put on your knees.
The faster you run, the more often you land.
I just saw that one of their latest ads is "we all have mcd's in common" :thumbsdown: