Friday, November 12, 2010

Some of the more controversial conclusions of Stranded

Blogging for four years now and here they are in no particular order but it does show a mind out of order with mainstream thinking at times. Blame it on the H2O but I have a problem with group consensus but maybe I'm just anti-zeitgeist:

Dieting is the proper balance between starvation and nutrition. A wife gives her husketeer husband a banana, an apple, two pieces of cheese for lunch, hell let's throw in a carrot. I think this is why the Italian woman at work finds this so controversial, deep down she recognizes the principle -- if it wasn't this you wouldn't lose weight.

Most Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion. When you study their various comments at various blogs and forums you can safely begin with the Premise that they are not Anti-Abortion so you're left with this vast undefined area, a kind of asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. I call it Pro-Abortion, they call it the Whatever.

You should enjoy drinking, absolutely but Z finds the Effects are better when you don't polish off the whole bottle. I'm wondering whether John Tesh ever drinks but I'm guessing no. He strikes me as the type of person who if Connie wants to use the anal beads he'd have to devote a great deal of study to the issue first and even then it's not a given.

Stalking. Didn't hear much about this in the 50's or even the 60's or 70's, in fact it was kind of celebrated (Dudley Moore/10, at least he had a goal and we're all for that right?) but when you get right down to it the pivot point is you're just not into him or her. Sure you'll say it's the behavior but you'd have no problem with the hunk living in Apt. 5F sending you a fruit basket. It's legislated subjectivity and not only that, it's a stupid subject.

We should get rid of most sexual harassment law. Don't like the banter in the workplace find another job. I don't hear the illegal immigrants complaining.

Exclusive homosexuality is a stylistic affectation and thanks to independent-thinking feminist Camille Paglia for this theory. I get that they want to polish a knob every now and then but as for homoism I ain't buying it.

Your reward for hard work is simply MORE hard work. It's a means to a means, sorry to break this to you but you've bought into conservative propaganda all these years. It's generally why I don't like Work, I see the reality others refuse to see.

Liberalism doesn't help people. A perfect example is I was in a CVS before and signs in the Pharmacy dept. have words in both English and Spanish. This doesn't help the Spanish person to learn English but it makes liberals feel good.

Prejudice is not always irrational just like paranoia is not always irrational. Most shoe or undie-bombers tend not to be Swedes and just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not talking about you. In fact they probably are.

That's enuf on our plate for today. It's a controversial buffet, the tongs are over there and please cap the soda. Keep it civil.

46 comments:

  1. I wish I had a quarter for every instance in which you've mentioned John Tesh. Le Bleh....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exclusive homosexuality is a stylistic affectation and thanks to independent-thinking feminist Camille Paglia for this theory. I get that they want to polish a knob every now and then but as for homo-ism I ain't buying it.

    I don't think most people would take on an affectation that could get them beat up or worse. I'm just sayin. Plus, if you're monogamously gay and want to live a normal life like non-gay people do (ie get married, list your SO as next of kin, list them on your insurance and so forth) it's illegal in most places. And then you got the Westboro Baptist people sayin you're goin to hell and not being allowed sometimes to adopt children and all of the other problems that gay couples have.

    It just seems like if you wanted to have an affectation you might just wear victorian style clothes or speak with a faux english accent or something rather than take on an affectation that would just bring you so much inconvenience and misery and possibly bodily harm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Dieting is the proper balance between starvation and nutrition. "

    Actually, Z, it is Possible to Deprive of Nutrition, while not Actually Starving. You can do that by Eating Nothing by Sweets and Junk Food.

    Your Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion Statement Reminds me of something that was said by a Commenter Once on Patrick's Blog, The Pro-Life Ballot. Beneath this Post..,

    Dmarks said...
    "Republicans, like most Americans, tend to oppose abortion, not 'Choice', a word put forth by the abortion industry to hide what they do."

    and...

    "it varies over time, but the most recent polls show a slim majority on the anti-abortion side."

    Just Because some People are Falsely Accused, Z, does not Change the Fact that things such as Stalking and Sexual Harassment are at Times Legitimate Complaints. When Employers Deprive of Jobs and Promotions based on someone's Negative Responses to their Advancements, that is Serious Sexual Harassment and when Some One Hangs Around someone's House Constantly and will not Leave them Alone, that is Serious and Legitimate Stalking.

    I Agree that Often "Your reward for hard work is simply MORE hard work."

    I do not Feel that Liberalism is Entirely a Negative, though. They just Take it too Far at Times.

    Prejudice is Wrong when it Turns to Stereo Typing.

    Perhaps I'll Take on the Subject of Homosexuality another Day. I've said Enough for now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And since it's now the middle of the night and I'm cranky because my digestion is being contrary:

    I've had stalkers twice in my life. The first one was psychotic and wanted to kill me and the second was psychotic but really old and thus easier contained (plus I was a lot older and more willing to deal with law enforcement on the issue). The first one I ran away to another state and changed my name (twice), and the second one recently (like 2 weeks ago) had an accident in his bathtub and couldn't get out for three days and his family put him in a nursing home in Poughkeepsie where he will surely shortly die because they took away whatever scrap of independence he had.

    I think crimes against women in general in this country are treated far too lightly by the law and to diminish any of the existing laws would only make this worse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I do not Feel that Liberalism is Entirely a Negative, though. They just Take it too Far at Times."

    Of course, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, this applies to Conservatism as well.

    Remember, our Founding Fathers were radicals who took the idea of independence to an extreme when they rebelled against England. That was treason, as we all know, and would be punishable by hanging, as the Founding Fathers knew when Frankin said after the signing of the Declaration of Independence to John Hancock, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall hang separately."

    Liberalism moves countries forward, Conservatism puts the brakes on moving too fast and precipitously.

    Working hand-in-hand, they can do much for a country.

    Working against each other, they will destroy it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shaw,
    "This applies to Conservatism as well."

    Yes, Absolutely and that is why I am a Moderate. And when ever You Talk about Balance and Compromise and Working Together, I always Agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My STAND is that we Need to Work Together and I have not Wavered on that Stand. Even though I am a Moderate Republican, I have not Moved from that Place. I have not Changed my Mind and Become a Democrat and I have not Changed my Mind and Become a Radical.

    My STAND is Very Solid and is in no Way a Non-Position, but instead a Very Strong Conviction.

    Below Zs Post, "A Word about the Election", Shaw said something that I Absolutely Loved. She said...

    "Every gain that this country has made has been made through COMPROMISE. If people don't understand that, they understand nothing."

    It made me Chuckle, because even though I Agree with her Totally, I didn't quite have the Guts to say it Quite that Directly. Three Cheers to all those who are willing to STAND Firmly in the Middle and Take the Heat, while Resisting the Pull towards the Irrational Extremes on Both Sides.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lista said "Actually Z it is Possible to Deprive of Nutrition while not Actually Starving."

    Agreed but you can't deny when you really analyze most diets that its success or failure hinges on this tension between starvation and nutrition and I use the word "starvation" here rather loosely just to illustrate the basic concept involved. Now hear me but unless you're a full-throttle tennis player you're only gonna burn so much fat through exercise, certainly not all of it or even most of it. You need that edge shall we say but the whole point is that dieting is unnatural to begin with but if you wanna break it down to its bare essentials there's no denying that it's what I just said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Saty re the gays I have nothing against them but as a Jamaican chef told me once he gets the bisexual thing but not the exclusive homosexuality thing. Didn't Kinsey put that way on one end of some scale? The classic Z illustration, Beyonce and Britney are playing nude volleyball on a beach with Eva Mendes and Giselle, what you're saying is a gay man has no desire to look? Just questioning things is all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't think a gay man would have no more desire to look than a straight man would like to watch Will Smith, Dwayne Johnson, Brian Urlacher and Ray Lewis (sorry, got football on my mind) naked on a beach playing volleyball.

    One of my dearest friends is just as gay as the day is long (he out-divas me without breaking a sweat)... everyone calls him The Queen Mother and he has tons of female friends but will tell you most sincerely that you do absolutely nothing for him in that way. "It's just not my thing, darling."

    It's just not his thing.

    About dieting:

    Dieting is a basic equation: when input is less than output you lose weight and vice versa. Now the problem here has several components because first of all Americans culturally eat grossly more than required (supersize me!), eat incredible amounts of protein (leading to kidney stressors that lead to calcium depletion and thus osteoporosis, hence Grama's busted hip and Grampa's dialysis), and drown everything in enough salt to pickle every cucumber in the country and enough fat to burn oil lamps 24/7 for generations. I didn't even mention the sugar here.

    So this is a cultural thing for Americans; it's not necessarily our fault, we were raised that way. But we don't work like people used to out in the fields farming and digging ditches and whatnot either... we just still eat like they did.

    Another thing I learned: did you know that carbonated drinks stretch out your stomach? I never knew this until they told us that postsurgical carbonation was verboten because of it. So that large diet Coke is stretching your stomach out so you can eat more of your #14 from McDonalds. It's like a vicious cycle designed to keep you fat.

    Trust me when I tell you that I have done every diet you can think of that can be done vegetarianly (?) and I know exactly how hard it is to lose weight, which is why I made the decisions I did for me. But I think the general population of the US is going to get more and more generally obese unless some major cultural paradigm shifts happen. It's starting to, I think, especially on the left coast, but it's going to take a very long time in the heartland and the south. And as the generations grow up we will see it take its toll in comorbidities popping up at very young ages.

    Also there's the social issue that let's face it, unless you live somewhere like me where there's a farmers market, fresh produce is expensive. I personally very rarely buy things that aren't in season for that very reason; they cost a fortune. Organic produce is even more-the only organic stuff I ever eat is blueberries from the organic farm 4 miles from here (u-pick, $1/lb) and organic milk that Walmart sells in a store brand. So if we can't really justify spending that money, how can people who are really struggling justify it? I know when I was in school we mostly lived on ramen, Treet (about once a week only), mac and cheese and I had the 5cent bowl of grits from the hospital when I was there for class. How healthy was that crap? But 12 pkg of ramen for $1 is enough for almost two weeks of suppers and you can sleep through the night without waking up from being hungry.

    It's all a sociocultural thing in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BTW, the only thing I'm seeing at the FM right now is collards. They're cheap as hell ($1.50 for a huge head) but I really can't eat them because they're a bit chaotic with my gut. I could get some, but one head would last me all winter because I'd be afraid to eat more than one leaf at a time. Anyway, the FM is very local here so still you're only getting what's growing, which for the rest of the winter you'll probably see nothing but collards unless someone has some winter squash, beets or turnips hidden away, and I haven't seen any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did you see my hot/sour soup recipe?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nutrition is Important, though, because when all a Person does is Count Calories, it is Hard to Get the Nutrition that the Body Needs on a Low Calorie Diet Unless the Empty Calories (Junk Food) is Pretty Much Avoided.

    I Guess there is also Tension between Hunger and Nutrition as well and I Think when a Person Eats Right, it is Easier in that Department.

    Well, I don't get the Bisexual Thing because if a Person has the Ability to be Attracted to both, then why wouldn't he or she Choose the More Acceptable Relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Saty re the gays I have nothing against them but as a Jamaican chef told me once he gets the bisexual thing but not the exclusive homosexuality thing..."

    Homosexuality is a big no no in Jamaican culture.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah but he's a liberal one, says he can't understand the gays but doesn't like Christians for hating them. Saty you touched on something here with our culture and it's this: WE DON'T NEED 3 SQUARE MEALS A DAY, not anymore. Two full meals is just fine and it's that third unnecessary meal that's making us fat. When I went over this at work the older Italian women just looked at me like I was from Outer Space. You know you can learn alot from mammals and don't misunderstand me here but when an animal hibernates basically the critter is using up stored body fat throughout those cold winter months. So basically I'm NOT saying sleep all day and not eat but people get all bent out of shape when they're hungry - "I'm Starving!!!" - when if you calm down and wait awhile some of your fat is gonna get used up. Shifts in cultural thinking, it's gonna take some time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Christians do not Hate Gays, or at least they are not Supposed to. We just Do not Accept the Idea that it is a Valid Alternative Life Style and that Our Kids should be Taught that it's Ok.

    Gays do not just Want to not Be Hated, they Actually Want Our Seal of Approval and that we can not Do.

    As to Food. Other People Get Bent Out of Shape when we are Hungry too and will Feel So Sorry for us and say, "Oh you Poor Thing. Aren't you Hungry? Here have Something to Eat.", or "Are You sure you've had Enough? Here Have some More.", or in Defense of this, they will say, "I just don't Want you to be Hungry.", as if that is the Absolute Worst of all Negatives.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jesus, of course, never personally said anything about homosexuality. He did say to love your neighbour. It's my opinion that 99% of what calls itself 'Christianity' is in fact no such thing and would be better to just admit it's Paulinism... because that's what it is, following Paul's words, not Jesus'.

    Z:

    I subscribe more to the 'six mini meal' plan. The reason I say this is because eating like that is really good for balancing out your blood sugar (even if you're not diabetic) and keeps you from getting too hungry at any given time. We do this a lot with folks at work and personally I do it myself. This doesn't mean eat a ton; I might have a yogurt or a piece of string cheese. For regular people I'd say eat half a sandwich or the equivalent of that.

    It's just my take on it. And for the record the best 'commercial' diets that I know of in terms of good nutrition and health are Richard Simmons' and Weight Watchers, both of which are pretty much based on the American Diabetic Association's plans.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Satyavati,
    Well, I'm Relieved to Know that you at Least did Find the Comments that I Submitted to your Blog Under your "Dessert as an Analogical Argument for Intelligent Design Post"

    Getting Back to your Commit on this Post, though, Christianity Follows both Paul's Words and Jesus' Words. The Two Ideas are not Incompatible.

    My First Reaction to the Food Part of your Comment was that I can't Eat 6 Small Meals a Day when I am Dieting because Sometimes when I'm Dieting, I will Eat a Bowl of Cereal in the Morning, a Piece of Fruit in the Afternoon and a Bowl of Soup in the Evening and that's it. That is the Total of all I've Eaten all Day. I did not Even List 6 Items.

    The Only Way to Divide that into 6 Meals would be to have 1/2 a Bowl of Cereal and 1/2 a Bowl of Soup and 1/2 of an Apple, or I guess, as you said, 1/2 a Sandwich. That's so Small, that it almost doesn't Seem Worth Taking the Time to Eat anything.

    I guess this Could be done, but it would Really Take Some Reconditioning of the Mind in Order to Persuade Oneself that Eating such a Small Amount really is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another Problem that I Find with the 6 Meals a Day Idea is that it Doesn't Allow for Fixing One Nice Meal for one's Family so that you can all Sit Down and Eat Together. The Six Meals a Day Plan is Better Designed for an everyone Fends for him or herself Eating Plan.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If all you're eating is a bowl of cereal, a piece of fruit and a bowl of soup, you're not eating enough calories to sustain you anyway and thus sending your metabolism into starvation mode.

    The idea is to take a reasonable, rational, fully adequate diet and break that up into six mini meals, not something that's not nutritionally complete and feasible in the long term to start with.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Perhaps I'm Starving myself, but I can't Loose Weight any other Way and I'm really not Joking. At Least Cereal is a Grain and a Carbohydrate, Milk is a Dairy Product, Soup has both Meat and Vegetables in it and Fruit is well Fruit, so what I'm eating is Balanced.

    And Actually, Fasting is Biblical and will not Kill you, so Eating Small Portions Obviously will not either.

    When I Diet, if People do not say "My God! Is that all you're going to Eat!", then I've Eaten too much.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I tend to agree with Lista more here. Last night I was watching The Biggest Loser and it was time for the old weigh-in and many of the contestants couldn't even lose 4, 5 or 6 pounds more than when they last got weighed and the woman who was booted off in the end gave it away for me. She said she's gonna continue exercising a whole lot and eating well. Now there's the key and maybe that's why the others hardly lost any weight as of late, they were working out alot but also eating too well. By that I mean yeah veggies are good for you and rice isn't fattening but let's say you pigged out on veggies and rice well that's not dieting imo. I haven't watched Biggest Loser enough to say my take can't be wrong but it was a thought I had last night. Those contestants have so much fat on them that they could well afford to skip a few meals but dieting is a controversial subject just like everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All I know about dieting I learned in the last 30 years and all I learned about nutrition I learned in nursing school.

    It's perfectly possible to be obese and malnourished at the same time.

    The body has basic requirements and you either fulfill those (not exceed them) or you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And fasting WILL kill you, eventually.

    And I stand by what I said: 95% of what passes for 'following Jesus' is 'following Paul'.

    You tell me where all the rules came from. Did Jesus tell women to sit down and shut up? Paul did. Two thousand years later, Catholics still don't have female priests.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well, at the Moment, I'm most Definitely not Starving myself. I guess we are going to Home Town Buffet Tomorrow and it is really Hard to go there and not Pig Out. It's my Father-in-Law's Favorite Place and I'm Actually getting Tired of it.

    Most People Can Go 40 Days or more without Eating without Actually Dying. It Takes a Long Time for that to Kill a Person, if the Person is Healthy. I have no Intention of Pushing the Issue to quite that Extent, so Thanks for the Concern, but I'm sure I'll be Fine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. My notion of dieting has always been putting less food in your mouth or eating less. I had always thought that was the traditional concept behind dieting not noshing all day. To expand on what Lista just said getting back to all those obese contestants they could probably go without eating for several hours and it would be to their benefit. Of course starving is extreme and we need to define it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What Satyavati was Describing is Essential for a Diabetic, Regardless of how much he or she Weighs.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dr. OZ imo is giving out some real bad advice on dieting. Cindy Adams says according to him "never be hungry, always have continuous small meals" but I've lost alot of weight in the last few months in large part by not noshing all day. I've thought for a long time now that most stuff that comes out of the media is pure propaganda from health to politics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Remember I said minimeals?

    Thank you for the validation Dr. Oz.

    ReplyDelete
  30. But you have to remember this dieting thing is a controversial area and I recall a writeup about Dr. OZ where many doctors disagreed with him about something although it wasn't dieting. Seems to me the modern trend in dieting is to take all the pain and suffering, yes the sacrifice and denial out of it but I'm from the Old School. In fact do the math, several minimeals all day (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)+ EQUALS kind of alot of food no?

    ReplyDelete
  31. No. Let's look at a theoretical example. Personally, I eat more than six times a day, so I can sort of use myself, with some modifications for normal stomachs. These examples are vegetarian because that's me, but not necessarily needing to be so. I'll estimate calories (it'll be fairly accurate cause I've been doing it so many years) and general recommendations for a weight loss diet will tell you approximately 1200 calories a day for women and 1600-1800 a day for men depending on size.

    Breakfast: grits (1 serving per the box directions) with 1 slice American cheese in it, and hot tea with milk and sweetener (not sugar). 160 calories.

    Second breakfast: 1 container Dannon Greek yogurt (I like plain with sweetener in it), coffee with milk and sweetener. 90 calories.

    Brunch: half a bagel with cream cheese, 6 oz Sunny Delight. 200 calories.

    Elevenses/Lunch: 1-2 cups vegetable stew (contains sweet potato, potato, carrot, turnip, tomatoes and firm tofu), saltines, 1-2 cups tossed salad with lite dressing, diet drink of choice. 400 calories.

    Snack At One: Bran muffin, coffee with milk and sweetener. 150 calories.

    Snack At Three: 3 cups air-popped popcorn with salt-free seasoning, diet drink of choice. 100 calories.

    Supper: Boca burger on 'deli flats' thin bun with condiments of choice, 2-3 cups tossed salad with shredded cheese (nonvegies could substitute julienned deli meats) and lite dressing, diet drink of choice. 275 calories.

    Dessert: 2 oatmeal cookies, hot tea with milk and sweetener. 160 calories.

    Bedtime snack: 1 tablespoon peanut butter divided between 3 saltines, diet drink of choice or hot tea with milk and sweetener. 125 calories.

    Now that adds up to 1510 calories in a day, which would fit perfectly into that 1600-1800 bracket. If you wanted to lower it for a woman, or because your BMR was lower and you needed to go lower (though no medically-unsupervised diet is safe below 1000 calories a day), you could cut out one of those afternoon snacks and dessert. You could also substitute some lower-calorie things in those snacks equally well; you could, for example, have carrot/celery sticks or something like that.

    But generally this is the way I eat. The good thing about this is that your blood sugar stays stable, you're not getting hungry and you're not feeling deprived.

    It might sound like a lot of FOOD, but it's not a lot of calories. The calories, in the end, are what's gonna get you, not the physical amount of food you're eating. You could eat lettuce all day long and never gain a pound off it.

    Anyway, I'm just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Duh, my math skills leave to be desired. The total really is 1510 because I used a calculator, but it's actually less than that bracket.

    If you add exercise into this mix you've got a good thing going on.

    ReplyDelete
  33. My Dad eats like this and he has no fat on him. The Boca burger w/condoms sounds good but as my time is limited today I can't get into the algebra here but I'm doing it my way and by middle of next week my thing should be over as I'm really quite close to my ideal weight right now although I'm not sure the Ozman would approve.

    ReplyDelete
  34. When I'm Inactive, I don't Think I can Even Lose Weight on a 1200 Calorie Diet. What Satyavati Described is Considerably Over That.

    "no medically-unsupervised diet is safe below 1000 calories a day."

    If a Person can Fast for awhile and not Die, then a Person can Eat Light and not Die. Doctors are just Paranoid because they do not want to be Sued and People with Health Problems do Need to be more Careful than the Rest of us.

    Once again, thanks for the Concern, but I'm Fine. Really!

    ReplyDelete
  35. If a Person can Fast for awhile and not Die, then a Person can Eat Light and not Die.

    Lista, personally in my opinion you can do whatever you like with the way you eat.

    But what I'm talking about here is something I'm dealing with right now. My body has been modified to be damn near incapable of taking in the amount of calories (and nutrients) it requires to function properly. As a result, I have to take special vitamins for the rest of my life, monitor things like how much protein I get per day, and eat as often as I need to in order to get those needs met.

    Now, there's no arguing with the fact that nutritional deficiencies result in health problems. Pernicious anemia. Muscle wasting. Kwashikor. Hair loss. Osteoporosis. I could go on but that's enough to go with.

    The basal metabolic rate is the amount of calories someone needs to basically lay in bed all day. For a 50 year old, 5'6", 175lb woman, this calculates out to 1500 calories a day. To simply lay in bed and breathe. Any kind of activity beyond that would require more.

    The body also requires certain amounts of things like protein. If the body doesn't get enough protein, it will start eating up muscle tissue. In the same way, if it doesn't get enough calcium, it starts to eat up bone. Too little fat in the diet and nerve conduction starts to suffer.

    Medically supervised diets can for short periods drop below 1000 calories a day because they're monitoring things like vitamin levels and chemistries and so on. For someone who is just out there deciding to eat 600 calories a day for months at a time, they're risking serious health issues. Have you gotten a good look at anorexic folk who live on 200 and 300 calories a day?

    So no, it's not that doctors are paranoid, it's that the body, like any machine, has requirements, and when those requirements aren't met, bad things are infintely more likely to happen.

    You do what you want. It's your body. But be aware of the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I Understand what you're Saying, Satyavati, yet if I had Anorexia, I Think that I would Know it and you are just Going to have to Trust me when I Tell you that I don't. I also have no Plans of Starving myself for Months at a Time.

    Doctors are Aware of the Extreme Cases, yet I'm not Talking about that. You are Talking about Months at a Time, Satyavati, and I am not.

    In all Truth, I Probably Eat more Calories than I Realize. It just Seems Like Very Little because there are some Days in which I Eat no more than I Described. Yet in Reality, what Happens is that Eventually, we either Go Out to Eat, or my Husband has a Special Dinner Request and when ever I Cook for him, I Eat Larger Meals, so I do not Eat Minimal Calories for Days on End.

    If I do get the Chance to Eat that way for Several Days Straight, I Eventually Feel so Hungry that I Really Can't Stand it and I can be Quite the Sissy when I Feel that way, so I Eat a Bigger Meal. In all Truth, the Body Sort of Tells us what it is that we Need to do and this is Why I am not the Slightest Bit Concerned about Over Doing it, because I don't Honestly Think that I have the Will Power that would be Required in Order to Actually Starve myself. If I did, I'd be much Thinner.

    This isn't the First Time, though, that I've Come Across someone with Specific Health Issues that is Overly Concerned about the Way those without those Health Issues Eat.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This isn't the First Time, though, that I've Come Across someone with Specific Health Issues that is Overly Concerned about the Way those without those Health Issues Eat.

    Uh.. and the fact that at work we spend an enormous amount of time calculating how much nutrition our people need to be healthy, and figuring out ways for them to get it. It becomes kind of a habit. Please don't take it as any kind of personal thing, cause it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You're just a little Preachy at Times, Satyavati, and I'm becoming Quite Tired of this Subject.

    ReplyDelete
  39. OK re Saty's six meals a day and her caloric calculations:

    Seems to me even if this is correct you'd end up maintaining your current weight but for a person who has to lose alot of weight they have to reduce their caloric intake drastically. Also everyone's metabolism is different. I have an elderly neighbor who eats very little every day, probably has a small stomach. Growing up my Mom told me it's not a good idea to eat before you go to bed, great way to get fat as obviously you ain't gonna burn it off during sleep. Re exercise I prefer exercising before eating a meal rather than after. Exercise after a meal and maybe you'll burn off some of what you just ate but work out before you eat and you're actually burning off actual fat.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I actually prefer Lista's approach here. Now I've been dieting for months now and as an example of a day when I've eaten the least amount of food for my main meal I had the Filet-o-Fish value meal at McDonald's which is in the range of something like 750-1000 calories, maybe in the morning I had a Muscle Milk (220 calories) and some cheese and crackers, whatever so you're already over the 1000 calorie a day minimum although it might not seem like it. Today I had a nice big stuffed pepper with some sausages and later on at work I'll eat something light like from the salad bar. For me the key is meal spacing, spacing my meals out as much as I can and so you burn more fat this way.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Calorie Counting is Hard. Personally, I Think Limiting the Number of Meals Talks Less Actual Mental Effort. Call me Lazy, yet so be it. I don't See how Dieting while Eating Six Times a Day would be Possible without Very Carefully Counting Calories.

    I Don't Know, Z. Exercising before a Meal might make you more Hungry. You're Right, though, about Avoiding Large Meals before Bed. I've Even Heard it Suggested that the Larger Meal should be Breakfast or Lunch, rather than Dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  42. for a person who has to lose alot of weight they have to reduce their caloric intake drastically.

    Depends on how fast you want to lose it. Most folks agree that 1-2 lb a week is healthy. To lose 1 lb you have to have a calorie deficit of 3500 calories. This means if your BMR is 2000 and you eat 1500 calories a day, every 7 days you will lose a pound.

    That's just the math of it. Everyone's got their own way.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks for the Info., Satyavati. I Assume you Mean 500 Calories, instead of 3500. It could be that Counting Calories is Necessary in some Cases, if we Really do want to Lose the Weight, but no Matter how you Look at it, it is Hard.

    ReplyDelete
  44. No, in order to lose one pound of fat you have to burn 3500 calories. That's why a 500 calorie-per-day deficit below your BMR will result in 1 pound lost every seven days.

    You can create that deficit by eating 500 calories less per day than your BMR or you can eat to your BMR and exercise off 500 calories a day. Either way, in 7 days when the deficit hits 3500, you'll have lost 1 pound of fat.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Lista: "I Don't Know Z. Exercising before a Meal might make you more Hungry."

    That's the whole point. Also less chance of cramping.

    ReplyDelete
  46. To lose one pound of fat per week Saty said:

    "You can create that deficit by eating 500 calories less per day than your BMR or you can eat to your BMR and exercise off 500 calories a day."

    Why not do BOTH and lose two pounds of fat per week? 'Tis true though you lost weight very slowly. Even during the most strenuous days of my diet/exercise regimen I'd lose at most two pounds in a few days, more often it seemed like one.

    ReplyDelete