Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought you were going to politely ignore me. Never mind. Is that the very very best that you can dig up - some quote based on inconclusive research from the 1970s. That is too funny. Thinking has changed a lot in 40 years.


You have strongly implied that I must be telling lies. I would be insulted by that if it came from someone intelligent. I am not mistaken regarding my diet, nor am I telling tall stories regarding my diet. Everything is as I have reported.


Really really pathetic about the lies:


In other words, fat people tell tall stories about their diet.


What makes you dangerous is that you're holding forth on something that you don't know a lot about. This is what you said, and what I responded to at 3.57pm yesterday:


> Fat people are fat because they overeat and don't

> get enough exercise.


That is, quite simply, not always the case. That is not what happened to me. You could possibly accept that you aren't an expert in this field and that perhaps you don't know as much as you think. Or you could be a complete wanker and just imply that I must be telling big fat lies.

I'm only ignoring your ranting and abuse giggirl, it's all "I knew a little girl who had a little curl...". Whoosh, duck's back and all that.


I'm most certainly not an expert. I wasn't aware I said I was?


I don't think you're telling big fat lies, and to be honest I wasn't even talking about you. You and your personal story were not in my mind when I posted. Your story had simply reminded me about something else.


These days we tend to interchange Prince Charlie's 'One thinks that one knows' with 'You think that you know'. It leaves a lot of scope for the paranoid to think it's all about them.


Your story reminded me about the countless studies I've read about the contradictions in fat people's diets between reported and actual consumption. That document was a modern one, the reference to the 70s was that belief in hocus pocus of chubbiness was dismantled by the medical profession 30 years ago.


You didn't read that either, because you didn't want to.


Your story also contradicted the first law of thermodynamics.


The fact remains that fat people are fat because they consume more energy than they expend. That's it. In loose parlance they eat too much and they don't exercise enough. It's flippant, it's a joke. It's also true.


To be honest giggirl, I don't think you care. I think you're focusing all your problems on me. That's okay, I'm a big boy. I'm not sure it'll make you happy though.

This is the 2006 Canadian Medical Association...


"Within the context of environmental, social and genetic factors, at the simplest level obesity results from long-term positive energy balance ? the interaction of energy intake and energy expenditure.


"With progressive improvements in the standard of living in developed and developing countries, overnutrition and sedentary lifestyle have supplanted physical labour and regular physical activity, which has resulted in positive energy balance and overweight."


In other words fat people are fat because they overeat and don't get enough exercise.



What problems are you talking about Huguenot? From what I read Giggirl was relaying her experience without suggesting it was a problem, just a fact. One which I found interesting enough to request she told me what her diet consisted of.


Your whole theory is based of what you have read in medical journals. She wrote about her personal experience. In my opinion that counts for more. It wont be considered medical science but if it happened it happened.


Not everything one can learn is in a book.

> I don't think you're telling big fat lies, and to

> be honest I wasn't even talking about you. You and

> your personal story were not in my mind when I

> posted. Your story had simply reminded me about

> something else.


I read it as aimed at giggirl just for the record. I think this thread is getting a bit nasty so maybe you should call a truce. Big kiss

No no. I have one tiny problem only that I am focusing on you. Just one small issue. Here it is..... I am not going to be patronished or condescended to on this matter.


To be honest giggirl, I don't think you care. I think you're focusing all your problems on me. That's okay, I'm a big boy. I'm not sure it'll make you happy though.


For the love of God get over yourself; who do you think you are.


So this is where I came in....


"In loose parlance they eat too much and they don't exercise enough. It's flippant, it's a joke. It's also true."


.... just to remind you what I originally said before you started to patronise me and call me a liar, quite simply, that is not always the case.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> What problems are you talking about Huguenot? From

> what I read Giggirl was relaying her experience

> without suggesting it was a problem, just a fact.

> One which I found interesting enough to request

> she told me what her diet consisted of.

>

> Your whole theory is based of what you have read

> in medical journals. She wrote about her personal

> experience. In my opinion that counts for more. It

> wont be considered medical science but if it

> happened it happened.

>

> Not everything one can learn is in a book.



Thanks Narnia


I wish to God that I had been overweight through eating too much. If that had been the case I could have eaten less, lost weight, and saved myself a lot of heartache. But that was not to be my experience. My experience is that my whole life I had a modest appetite and ingested a relatively small intake of food. This didn't matter until my mid 30s when I started to put on weight. When I turned 40 I gave up smoking and weight piled on. I'm not an expert but I would say that my metabolism changed. If you overeat you simply eat less to loose weight. If you don't overeat then the position is a lot tricker.


To make matters worse there are a lot of idiots saying stupid things. I have been extremely lucky and managed to get my diet and metabolism back on the right track. I haven't yet managed to stabilise things so I can't skip meals and I'm literally "eating to stay thin". It's difficult. Eating isn't my favourite thing to do.

Eating isn't my favourite thing to do.


That's so sad - I can't think of many things I like to do more - and luckily for me my metabolism lets me do it (Theo's classes help too!) I did think your diet looked a bit repetitive - now I understand why.



That's an interesting comment Cassius. As you like it so much, as do many others I'm sure, doesn't make it sad that someone doesn't surely? As for Giggirl's diet, it seemed quite interesting to me. As I'm a vegetarian mine would probably put you to sleep.

Well done GG. It sounds like you've found an eating plan that works for you and I really admire you for being prepared to risk something new and different to achieve your goals. I agree with you that Huguenot was being patronising...but you know what really matters.

I appreciate that the proximity of giggirl's post and my train of thought read as a direct challenge. I didn't think about it that way, it was simply a logical progression.


I apologise for the 'liar' inference, it wasn't intended, it wasn't alleged, and swearing at me doesn't help.


I recognise the desire to make this a 'people issue'.


However, it's just chemistry this one. Conservation of energy in chemical form. A denial of this basic premise is a refutation of clinical evidence and even the basic recognition that if you let go of an apple it falls.


If in spite of this you want to go with the 'people angle' go ahead. On that basis you can believe anything you like.

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> That's an interesting comment Cassius. As you like

> it so much, as do many others I'm sure, doesn't

> make it sad that someone doesn't surely? As for

> Giggirl's diet, it seemed quite interesting to me.

> As I'm a vegetarian mine would probably put you to

> sleep.


Actually Narnia I am a vegetarian too (actually a Pescatarian but I only seldom eat fish - usually when abroad when the vegetarian choice is limited),but that still means that I eat a varied and very interesting diet. I just love cooking and eating so much I just feel that someone who doesn't like food is missing out. I feel the same about people who don't like music - that it is sad that they can't take pleasure from something that is intrisically so pleasurable.

I can see Huguenot's thought process here - science has an explanation that we all know to be true so it must be correct. But then again, bees can't fly. According to the laws of physics, that is.


GG states a series of facts. Since she isn't a liar, they are what they are. If they don't agree with science as we know it then it's possible, just possible, that science can't yet explain everything.


If you eliminate the impossible, then what is left, however improbable, is the truth.


Good on you GG. If it works for you, that's what matters.

GG didn't state a series of facts at all. Indeed, the main cause of dispute in my mind - the 800 to 1000 calories a day - is an estimate. And no one said she was a liar - she may, however, be mistaken.


It's interesting, legalbeagle, that you chose the 'science proved bumblebees can't fly' myth. It's a classic case of one person making an error that, because it sounded good, has managed to embed itself into popular belief. Maybe a bit like easting less makes you fat?


Bumblebees Can't Fly Myth

espelli, I can't believe you trot out Gary Taubes. He's a journalist with no medical/nutritional/dietary training who sells books because he disagrees with doctors and appeals to Daily Mail readers.


People buy his books because they justify bad habits. He parasites on losers because they buy his books.


He doesn't care if they die, he's rich. He never signed the Hippocratic Oath.


Shame on you.

I know if I eat too much and don't exercise, I get fat. But if I eat too little, my body seems to cling onto weight. I always justify it by saying my metabolism is like a muscle, it has to be used to make it work.


You can never make sweeping statements about anything to do with the human body, as everyone is different, but I do believe that eating less and doing more makes you healthier / thinner / fitter.

Sure, just wasted 25 minutes watching the whole Gary Taubes rubbish.


I can summarise, and I've seen it somewhere before: "Eating too many calories doesn't necessarily make you fat, but you can't get fat without eating too many calories."

Huguenot, I posted the link with Gary Taubes name, if you were so against him then why watch the video?


Shame on me for attempting to make a contribution to this thread that you do not necessarily agree with??? Why be so hostile?

Excuse my...


Dietary ignorance but....


Does eating heavy food ( like a brick ) make you heavier ?


So conversely would eating a bowl full of balloon's makes you lighter ?


Is that the gist of it & not with standing the proverbial "lead balloon" ( because that's poisonous )




W**F



* checks chinese take away menu for balloon based dishes *

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...