What did you eat today?

Chicken salad with celery and red pepper on romaine lettuce leaves.

@@@@@@

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I'm sorry. It's actually 17,000 and counting. The customers aren't satisfied with four Waffle Houses in every mile they want one on every corner of the main streets. Got to keep that southern obesity tradition going.
link to original post

You might want to look a little closer to home. According to the CDC Michigan has a higher obesity rate than Georgia. I would not be surprised if you are part of that statistic.
link to original post

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I'm sorry. It's actually 17,000 and counting. The customers aren't satisfied with four Waffle Houses in every mile they want one on every corner of the main streets. Got to keep that southern obesity tradition going.
link to original post

You might want to look a little closer to home. According to the CDC Michigan has a higher obesity rate than Georgia. I would not be surprised if you are part of that statistic.
link to original post

Nice try.

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the states with the highest obesity rates in 2023 are:
West Virginia: 41.2%
Mississippi: 40.1%
Arkansas: 40.0%
Louisiana: 39.9%
Alabama: 39.3%
Other states with high obesity rates include:
Oklahoma, Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky."

Michigan and Georgia are not even on the list. It was the city of Atlanta and the county that I was referring to not the entire state of Georgia.

"Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta, Georgia has a high obesity rate, ranking among the most overweight cities in the nation."

This was what I said in the post. "The county that Atlanta is in is one of the most obese counties in the entire country. It's full of fatties and fatties are who goes to Waffle House. People are not fat in Atlanta because of so many Waffle Houses, there are so many Waffle Houses because there's so many fat people."

And for the record no I am not obese, I'm about 20 lb from my perfect weight. And I work on getting back to that everyday. Look what I had for dinner tonight, it was a whopping 400 calories.

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even on the list

Wrong again Bob. I am actually getting alarmed by how often your posts are wrong. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose for content or if you are just not diligent.

The 2023 Adult Obesity Prevalence Maps for 48 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and three U.S. territories show the proportion of adults with obesity. These maps are based on self-reported weight and height from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

Georgia 35% of population obese. Michigan 35.4% of population obese.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data-and-statistics/adult-obesity-prevalence-maps.html

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even on the list

Wrong again Bob. I am actually getting alarmed by how often your posts are wrong. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose for content or if you are just not diligent.

The 2023 Adult Obesity Prevalence Maps for 48 states, the District of Columbia (DC), and three U.S. territories show the proportion of adults with obesity. These maps are based on self-reported weight and height from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)

Georgia 35% of population obese. Michigan 35.4% of population obese.

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data-and-statistics/adult-obesity-prevalence-maps.html
link to original post

Read It and Weep copious amounts.

"Topping the list is West Virginia, where nearly 41% of adults are classified as obese, giving the Mountain State a not-so-slim lead over its neighbors.
Next are Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee — where the obesity rate is as high as 37.8%."

Michigan and Georgia are not even in the top list. But the county inside of Georgia where Atlanta is in is one of the fattest in the country, that's where we started with all this.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/13/health/most-obese-us-states-revealed-in-new-report-yours-on-the-list/

Shrimp and veggie Chinese stir fry

Boneless skinless chicken breast on a bed of veggies baked in the oven. Super easy super fast and super good. 2 days worth.

Connie's Classic Thin Crust Pizza.

This is quickly becoming my favorite frozen pizza. The crust is nothing special, but the toppings are fantastic. Last night, I had pepperoni and sausage. They certainly don't skimp on toppings
Walmart has the for about $7 a pie, but they hold frequent BOGOs. I recently picked up eight for $3.25 each.
I'll eat two-thirds of one as a meal and the rest as a snack a few hours later. Thin-crust pizza fares better in the microwave than normal pizza.

Connie's and Home Town Pizza come in almost identical packaging, and both are from Chicago, 'but they don't seem related.

Microwaving leftover pizza?

You do you, but I prefer eating it cold or warming it up on the stovetop, in a covered cast iron pan. A few minutes in the toaster oven isn't a bad re-warm, either.

Reheating pizza in a microwave is not difficult. I brush the slices with water on both sides and put a cup of water in with them.
Cook for thirty seconds and then in 15-second burst until you catch that extraordinary pizza odor.

Mexican chicken stir fry

One of the perks of living in a 55-and-over community is that that the city and state occasionally provide a cultural advancement program, which often features free food. The park has two or three events a week but I only attend two a month, on average.
Today's program was about ways to save money and cut down on food waste.
One thing she said caught my interest. She said that switching your main meal from dinner to lunch would improve your health and save you money. Many of the examples involved eating out, as lunch is usually cheaper and portions tend to be smaller. Lunch tends to be lighter than dinner so having the lighter meal at the end of the day seems to make sense.
Using her calculations- 500 calories for breakfast, 1500 for lunch, 500 for dinner and 500 for two snacks combined with mild exercise will result in steady long term weight loss.
Five of us committed to trying this diet starting Tuesday. Not the calories, but the idea.

1500 calories for lunch is pretty high. Part of her plan is not to bank unused calories. It also says no candy, pastry, or heavy cream, but I don't use any of those anyway.

deleted duplicate post

Quote: billryan

One of the perks of living in a 55-and-over community is that that the city and state occasionally provide a cultural advancement program, which often features free food. The park has two or three events a week but I only attend two a month, on average.
Today's program was about ways to save money and cut down on food waste.
One thing she said caught my interest. She said that switching your main meal from dinner to lunch would improve your health and save you money. Many of the examples involved eating out, as lunch is usually cheaper and portions tend to be smaller. Lunch tends to be lighter than dinner so having the lighter meal at the end of the day seems to make sense.
Using her calculations- 500 calories for breakfast, 1500 for lunch, 500 for dinner and 500 for two snacks combined with mild exercise will result in steady long term weight loss.
Five of us committed to trying this diet starting Tuesday. Not the calories, but the idea.

1500 calories for lunch is pretty high. Part of her plan is not to bank unused calories. It also says no candy, pastry, or heavy cream, but I don't use any of those anyway.
link to original post

This has to be a joke. The average person needs between 2,000 and 2,500 calories a day to maintain their weight. Sometimes a larger guy might need 3,000. Nobody is ever ever going to lose weight on 3,000 calories a day especially if they're over 40, they are going to gain weight. I'm on an 1100 calorie a day diet since March and I'm losing five or six pounds a month which is just right because it's not too fast. The older you get especially past 50, the less calories you need to maintain your weight. If anything 3,000 calories is a weight gain diet.

Quote: billryan

One thing she said caught my interest. She said that switching your main meal from dinner to lunch would improve your health and save you money. Many of the examples involved eating out, as lunch is usually cheaper and portions tend to be smaller. Lunch tends to be lighter than dinner so having the lighter meal at the end of the day seems to make sense.
link to original post

(heavily truncated)

This doesn't sound too strange.
Around here, "dinner" can be a large midday meal or a (large) evening meal. If the midday meal is large, the evening meal would often be called "supper".

I thought poor people ate supper while successful people had dinner. My mother didn't like it when people asked what was for supper

Quote: billryan

I thought poor people ate supper while successful people had dinner. My mother didn't like it when people asked what was for supper
link to original post

I've always heard it as differentiation on the social and culinary nature of the meal. Compare and contrast "a light supper" vs "a big dinner".

Multiple courses or invited guests would tend to make it a dinner.

Honestly, I never gave it much thought. I'm still trying to understand what and when it is brunch

For me, the differences between a brunch and a late breakfast are that:

• -3 or more people are attending
• -at least one attendee does not reside with the others
• -alcohol is available (often mimosas, bloody marys, or some other colloquial "morning booze")
• -coffee is available
• -the venue is not a bar
• -the gathering commences at least one hour after the usual breakfast time, and at least one hour before the usual midday meal time
• -there is no particular agenda for discussion (this would make it a "breakfast meeting")

The more of these criteria that are met, the more likely it is brunch.

Attendees may often have hangovers, and the event will usually be on a day of leisure, rather than a "work day".

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: billryan

One of the perks of living in a 55-and-over community is that that the city and state occasionally provide a cultural advancement program, which often features free food. The park has two or three events a week but I only attend two a month, on average.
Today's program was about ways to save money and cut down on food waste.
One thing she said caught my interest. She said that switching your main meal from dinner to lunch would improve your health and save you money. Many of the examples involved eating out, as lunch is usually cheaper and portions tend to be smaller. Lunch tends to be lighter than dinner so having the lighter meal at the end of the day seems to make sense.
Using her calculations- 500 calories for breakfast, 1500 for lunch, 500 for dinner and 500 for two snacks combined with mild exercise will result in steady long term weight loss.
Five of us committed to trying this diet starting Tuesday. Not the calories, but the idea.

1500 calories for lunch is pretty high. Part of her plan is not to bank unused calories. It also says no candy, pastry, or heavy cream, but I don't use any of those anyway.
link to original post

This has to be a joke. The average person needs between 2,000 and 2,500 calories a day to maintain their weight. Sometimes a larger guy might need 3,000. Nobody is ever ever going to lose weight on 3,000 calories a day especially if they're over 40, they are going to gain weight. I'm on an 1100 calorie a day diet since March and I'm losing five or six pounds a month which is just right because it's not too fast. The older you get especially past 50, the less calories you need to maintain your weight. If anything 3,000 calories is a weight gain diet.
link to original post

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Chicken and red pepper frittata which is just a an unfolded omelette. These get tough if you cook them too long so put a lid on it when it's still runny take it off the heat Come back 2 minutes later and it'll be fully cooked if you leave the lid on and it won't be tough and overcooked.

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even in the top list. But the county inside of Georgia where Atlanta is in is one of the fattest in the country, that's where we started with all this.

No, they are not at the top of the list but Michigan is still more obese than Georgia.

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even in the top list. But the county inside of Georgia where Atlanta is in is one of the fattest in the country, that's where we started with all this.

No, they are not at the top of the list but Michigan is still more obese than Georgia.
link to original post

I was never talking about Georgia, I was talking about ATLANTA!

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Why not eat 10,000 and burn 18000.

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.
link to original post

Two online calculators told you to eat 4,000 calories to maintain your weight? Okie dokie

"Will I lose weight if I eat 4,000 calories a day? No, you won't.
4,000 calories is almost double what the average person should
consume in a day"

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.
link to original post

Two online calculators told you to eat 4,000 calories to maintain your weight? Okie dokie

"Will I lose weight if I eat 4,000 calories a day? No, you won't.
4,000 calories is almost double what the average person should
consume in a day"

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.
link to original post

There is yet another way: being a man around 400 pounds or so and spending your day doing the same things anyone else would do.

You can test that by putting some sandbags and metal plates on yourself so they plus you weigh 400 pounds, then go for a walk. Maybe up a mild hill, or a flight of stairs. How many calories do you think you would burn a day doing that?

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.
link to original post

Two online calculators told you to eat 4,000 calories to maintain your weight? Okie dokie

"Will I lose weight if I eat 4,000 calories a day? No, you won't.
4,000 calories is almost double what the average person should
consume in a day"

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.
link to original post

There is yet another way: being a man around 400 pounds or so and spending your day doing the same things anyone else would do.

You can test that by putting some sandbags and metal plates on yourself so they plus you weigh 400 pounds, then go for a walk. Maybe up a mild hill, or a flight of stairs. How many calories do you think you would burn a day doing that?
link to original post

That sounds like a great idea for one of those youtube channels where they do challenges. "I wore a 200lb vest for 30 days".And the guy weighs like 180.

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.
link to original post

I believe it has a lot to do with your lifestyle. I do so little that I doubt that I burn 1500 calories a day.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even in the top list. But the county inside of Georgia where Atlanta is in is one of the fattest in the country, that's where we started with all this.

No, they are not at the top of the list but Michigan is still more obese than Georgia.
link to original post

I was never talking about Georgia, I was talking about ATLANTA!
link to original post

You might want to compare Atlanta to Detroit.

Spoiler: Detroit is more obese than Atlanta and Michigan doesn't even have Waffle Houses.

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.

Quote: billryan

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.
link to original post

At my age I do make quite a few trips to the restroom. I would guess that is the majority of my movement in a typical day.

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.
link to original post

At my age I do make quite a few trips to the restroom. I would guess that is the majority of my movement in a typical day.
link to original post

Choose the far bathroom to increase your exercise. Forty extra steps round-trip multiplied by 8-10 times a day is like eliminating a cheeseburger from your ecosystem every day.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

I heartily endorse people who think they can lose weight on 3000 calories a day. Do it for a month every day and get back to us on your amazing weight loss. I'm breathless with anticipation. Lol

Very simple, eat 3000 calories a day and burn 5000. Sounds like a workable solution to me.
link to original post

Two online calculators tell me to maintain my weight, I should consume 4000 calories. To lose weight slowly, do 3200 or less and to lose weight rapidly try to do between 2500-3000.
link to original post

Two online calculators told you to eat 4,000 calories to maintain your weight? Okie dokie

"Will I lose weight if I eat 4,000 calories a day? No, you won't.
4,000 calories is almost double what the average person should
consume in a day"

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.
link to original post

There is yet another way: being a man around 400 pounds or so and spending your day doing the same things anyone else would do.

You can test that by putting some sandbags and metal plates on yourself so they plus you weigh 400 pounds, then go for a walk. Maybe up a mild hill, or a flight of stairs. How many calories do you think you would burn a day doing that?
link to original post

Are you saying you weigh 400 lb? If you weigh that much and your over 40 you have far far more problems than how many calories you eat a day. My brother weighed 400 lb right into his mid 50s and now he's in his 60s and his life is nothing but misery. He totally destroyed his health, his joints are totally worn out he can barely walk, he's been in for surgery after surgery if he makes it to 70 I'll be shocked. What happens to your body when you're that morbidly obese is indescribable. We did not evolve to be obese, go back just 100 years and look at the crowd pictures in big cities there are no fat people. Imagine what it was like in the thousands and hundreds of thousands of years before that. If you weigh 400 pounds and you're over 40 you're dancing with the devil

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: DRich

Quote: EvenBob

Michigan and Georgia are not even in the top list. But the county inside of Georgia where Atlanta is in is one of the fattest in the country, that's where we started with all this.

No, they are not at the top of the list but Michigan is still more obese than Georgia.
link to original post

I was never talking about Georgia, I was talking about ATLANTA!
link to original post

You might want to compare Atlanta to Detroit.

Spoiler: Detroit is more obese than Atlanta and Michigan doesn't even have Waffle Houses.
link to original post

Oh my God, you make my point for me over and over. I said there are so many Waffle Houses in Atlanta because there are so many fat people in Atlanta. I'm sure Detroit has its own form of huge fat causing waste of space restaurants where all the people there get fat.

Burger King has a breakfast special of two egg and sausage croissants, hash browns and ice coffee for 5.99. It's a lot of food but at the regular price one croissant and an ice coffee is 5.29.
Lately, I've been buying a special a few days a week and giving one sandwich and half the hash browns to the first hungry person I run into. Today, I gave it to an older woman I've just started to see around the neighborhood. She didn't seem to speak English, and as I tried my broken Spanish, I realized she spoke Italian. She looks like someone who's been outdoors for a long time, but I'd love to know how an Italian-speaking old woman ends up on the streets of Tucson.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.
link to original post

There is yet another way: being a man around 400 pounds or so and spending your day doing the same things anyone else would do.

You can test that by putting some sandbags and metal plates on yourself so they plus you weigh 400 pounds, then go for a walk. Maybe up a mild hill, or a flight of stairs. How many calories do you think you would burn a day doing that?
link to original post

Are you saying you weigh 400 lb? If you weigh that much and your over 40 you have far far more problems than how many calories you eat a day. My brother weighed 400 lb right into his mid 50s and now he's in his 60s and his life is nothing but misery. He totally destroyed his health, his joints are totally worn out he can barely walk, he's been in for surgery after surgery if he makes it to 70 I'll be shocked. What happens to your body when you're that morbidly obese is indescribable. We did not evolve to be obese, go back just 100 years and look at the crowd pictures in big cities there are no fat people. Imagine what it was like in the thousands and hundreds of thousands of years before that. If you weigh 400 pounds and you're over 40 you're dancing with the devil
link to original post

No I am not referring to me. I have weighed over 300 pounds but never near 400. The discussion seemed to be what it would take for a 4000 calorie per day diet to be weight maintaining. We've all seen the online calorie calculators and know that you input parameters, and one of the parameters you enter is your weight. If someone tells me it would take 4000 calories for him to maintain his weight, I would assume it is something like that which is being communicated to me.

Regarding the weights of generations past- that has to be viewed in light of the fact that we are also healthier and live longer than those generations. First of all we are talking about a population where most adults and half of kids smoked, and that alone makes a direct comparison impracticable, but a lot of those people in those old pictures were not by any modern definition healthy. Tuberculosis, intestinal worms, undiagnosed cancer, untreated diabetes, untreated addiction, malnutrition, pernicious anemia, problems that would be recognized and treated in the present day but were part of the life of someone you would see every day back then. Their health was more like that of someone in the Third World today than like that of a modern American.

Interesting that in old pictures of rural people especially farmers they do tend to be fat. These were people who did more work before 10 AM than most people do all day, and they also had all the fresh, high quality and unadulterated food they could eat. I would estimate that level of fatness (which is not anything like morbid obesity) to be the human ideal for health, not the skinniness we see in other populations.

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.
link to original post

At my age I do make quite a few trips to the restroom. I would guess that is the majority of my movement in a typical day.
link to original post

Choose the far bathroom to increase your exercise. Forty extra steps round-trip multiplied by 8-10 times a day is like eliminating a cheeseburger from your ecosystem every day.
link to original post

You are kidding right? I never want to exert any more than I have to. I have started making my wife make sure the toilet paper comes over the front of the roll so I don't have to reach an extra inch or two. I would guess a typical day for me consists of less than 500 steps. As of 6pm today my phone says that I have walked 52 steps. Granted, I don't always carry it when I go to the bathroom.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

The only people that can eat like that are bodybuilders and athletes who burn thousands of calories a day. From what you said about your lifestyle that ain't you.
link to original post

There is yet another way: being a man around 400 pounds or so and spending your day doing the same things anyone else would do.

You can test that by putting some sandbags and metal plates on yourself so they plus you weigh 400 pounds, then go for a walk. Maybe up a mild hill, or a flight of stairs. How many calories do you think you would burn a day doing that?
link to original post

Are you saying you weigh 400 lb? If you weigh that much and your over 40 you have far far more problems than how many calories you eat a day. My brother weighed 400 lb right into his mid 50s and now he's in his 60s and his life is nothing but misery. He totally destroyed his health, his joints are totally worn out he can barely walk, he's been in for surgery after surgery if he makes it to 70 I'll be shocked. What happens to your body when you're that morbidly obese is indescribable. We did not evolve to be obese, go back just 100 years and look at the crowd pictures in big cities there are no fat people. Imagine what it was like in the thousands and hundreds of thousands of years before that. If you weigh 400 pounds and you're over 40 you're dancing with the devil
link to original post

No I am not referring to me. I have weighed over 300 pounds but never near 400. The discussion seemed to be what it would take for a 4000 calorie per day diet to be weight maintaining. We've all seen the online calorie calculators and know that you input parameters, and one of the parameters you enter is your weight. If someone tells me it would take 4000 calories for him to maintain his weight, I would assume it is something like that which is being communicated to me.

Regarding the weights of generations past- that has to be viewed in light of the fact that we are also healthier and live longer than those generations. First of all we are talking about a population where most adults and half of kids smoked, and that alone makes a direct comparison impracticable, but a lot of those people in those old pictures were not by any modern definition healthy. Tuberculosis, intestinal worms, undiagnosed cancer, untreated diabetes, untreated addiction, malnutrition, pernicious anemia, problems that would be recognized and treated in the present day but were part of the life of someone you would see every day back then. Their health was more like that of someone in the Third World today than like that of a modern American.

Interesting that in old pictures of rural people especially farmers they do tend to be fat. These were people who did more work before 10 AM than most people do all day, and they also had all the fresh, high quality and unadulterated food they could eat. I would estimate that level of fatness (which is not anything like morbid obesity) to be the human ideal for health, not the skinniness we see in other populations.
link to original post

By old pictures of rural people you must be talking about pictures from after mechanization took over farming in the 40s and 50s. Before then farmers were not obese.

"Obesity was not common among farmers in America in 1900. In fact,
obesity was much less prevalent overall compared to today. Farmers,
due to their physically active work and often healthier diets, tended to
have greater body mass indexes (BMIs) than workers in other occupations"

People were not obese in 1900 and before or even in the 1920s because they didn't eat processed food. And they got more exercise. They might have not have been as healthy because we didn't have treatments for hardly anything. If you had TB, or diabetes, or just about anything, oh well. Infectious disease killed hundreds of millions of people because there were no treatments. These days we have treatments for just about everything.

Here's a fact most people don't know. Between 1900 and 1950 medical knowledge worldwide doubled. Then it started to pick up pace. Here's where it is now and if you don't believe it just look it up I did in 14 different places and they all say the same thing. Medical knowledge doubles now every 74 days. That's right every two and a half months we double the medical knowledge. This doesn't mean you're going to see it in your doctor's office because that moves at a snail's pace. But 20 years from now medicine will look nothing like it does now. And 20 years after that science fiction can't even go that far. Think about what it was like in 1900 when we had virtually nothing if you were sick. In fact they say that in 1900 you had more chance of dying when you went to a hospital then you did if you stayed home. That's how bad things were.

I graduated from high school in 1967. There was not a single fat kid in a class of 210. The entire school had over 900 students and I think I remember a couple of slightly overweight kids but nothing like you see now. It's night and day. Sometimes I go by these bus stops and the kids waiting there look like the circus is in town they're so fat. One of the grandkids is involved in ballet so every year they have a big ballet pageant and of course my wife goes to it and she's just appalled and grossed out by the huge number of morbidly obese girls that are in ballet. She can't figure out why a parent would do that to a kid. She says they look ridiculous prancing around in these tight little outfits when they are so fat their eyes are practically squeezed shut.

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.
link to original post

At my age I do make quite a few trips to the restroom. I would guess that is the majority of my movement in a typical day.
link to original post

Choose the far bathroom to increase your exercise. Forty extra steps round-trip multiplied by 8-10 times a day is like eliminating a cheeseburger from your ecosystem every day.
link to original post

You are kidding right? I never want to exert any more than I have to. I have started making my wife make sure the toilet paper comes over the front of the roll so I don't have to reach an extra inch or two. I would guess a typical day for me consists of less than 500 steps. As of 6pm today my phone says that I have walked 52 steps. Granted, I don't always carry it when I go to the bathroom.
link to original post

Another simple solution- drinking more beer will cause more bathroom breaks. mo' breaks=mo exercise. ipso- more beer is good for you.

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

Quote: DRich

Quote: billryan

From what I'e seen, a typical American male couch potato burns about 2000 calories a day just by existing. He'll burn another 200-600 by chewing, walking to the bathroom and pleasing himself.
link to original post

At my age I do make quite a few trips to the restroom. I would guess that is the majority of my movement in a typical day.
link to original post

Choose the far bathroom to increase your exercise. Forty extra steps round-trip multiplied by 8-10 times a day is like eliminating a cheeseburger from your ecosystem every day.
link to original post

You are kidding right? I never want to exert any more than I have to. I have started making my wife make sure the toilet paper comes over the front of the roll so I don't have to reach an extra inch or two. I would guess a typical day for me consists of less than 500 steps. As of 6pm today my phone says that I have walked 52 steps. Granted, I don't always carry it when I go to the bathroom.
link to original post

I hear the automatic bidet seats require even less effort.
The personal cleansing cycle begins with the simple press of a button.

There's microwaved precooked boneless pork ribs, microwave precooked beef brisket, microwave pre-grilled chicken breast tenders, boiled corn on the cob, baked mac & cheese, and some pink lemonade-like product

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: EvenBob

No I am not referring to me. I have weighed over 300 pounds but never near 400. The discussion seemed to be what it would take for a 4000 calorie per day diet to be weight maintaining. We've all seen the online calorie calculators and know that you input parameters, and one of the parameters you enter is your weight. If someone tells me it would take 4000 calories for him to maintain his weight, I would assume it is something like that which is being communicated to me.

Regarding the weights of generations past- that has to be viewed in light of the fact that we are also healthier and live longer than those generations. First of all we are talking about a population where most adults and half of kids smoked, and that alone makes a direct comparison impracticable, but a lot of those people in those old pictures were not by any modern definition healthy. Tuberculosis, intestinal worms, undiagnosed cancer, untreated diabetes, untreated addiction, malnutrition, pernicious anemia, problems that would be recognized and treated in the present day but were part of the life of someone you would see every day back then. Their health was more like that of someone in the Third World today than like that of a modern American.

Interesting that in old pictures of rural people especially farmers they do tend to be fat. These were people who did more work before 10 AM than most people do all day, and they also had all the fresh, high quality and unadulterated food they could eat. I would estimate that level of fatness (which is not anything like morbid obesity) to be the human ideal for health, not the skinniness we see in other populations.
link to original post

By old pictures of rural people you must be talking about pictures from after mechanization took over farming in the 40s and 50s. Before then farmers were not obese.

"Obesity was not common among farmers in America in 1900. In fact,
obesity was much less prevalent overall compared to today. Farmers,
due to their physically active work and often healthier diets, tended to
have greater body mass indexes (BMIs) than workers in other occupations"

People were not obese in 1900 and before or even in the 1920s because they didn't eat processed food. And they got more exercise. They might have not have been as healthy because we didn't have treatments for hardly anything. If you had TB, or diabetes, or just about anything, oh well. Infectious disease killed hundreds of millions of people because there were no treatments. These days we have treatments for just about everything.

Here's a fact most people don't know. Between 1900 and 1950 medical knowledge worldwide doubled. Then it started to pick up pace. Here's where it is now and if you don't believe it just look it up I did in 14 different places and they all say the same thing. Medical knowledge doubles now every 74 days. That's right every two and a half months we double the medical knowledge. This doesn't mean you're going to see it in your doctor's office because that moves at a snail's pace. But 20 years from now medicine will look nothing like it does now. And 20 years after that science fiction can't even go that far. Think about what it was like in 1900 when we had virtually nothing if you were sick. In fact they say that in 1900 you had more chance of dying when you went to a hospital then you did if you stayed home. That's how bad things were.

I graduated from high school in 1967. There was not a single fat kid in a class of 210. The entire school had over 900 students and I think I remember a couple of slightly overweight kids but nothing like you see now. It's night and day. Sometimes I go by these bus stops and the kids waiting there look like the circus is in town they're so fat. One of the grandkids is involved in ballet so every year they have a big ballet pageant and of course my wife goes to it and she's just appalled and grossed out by the huge number of morbidly obese girls that are in ballet. She can't figure out why a parent would do that to a kid. She says they look ridiculous prancing around in these tight little outfits when they are so fat their eyes are practically squeezed shut.
link to original post

There's some confusion of terms here, and that's actually the point. I am calling people "fat," not "obese" or "morbidly obese." What do those terms mean?

1967, what an interesting year. Now who was the most popular model in the world in 1967? She certainly wasn't fat, but should that have been considered the look of health or what anyone should aspire to? Musicians, actors, anybody who was anybody was thin, not for anything having to do with health but for style. And as I am sure you are aware, green pill to go, red pill to stop was also within cultural norms in that class at the time and that look was predominantly drug induced. The 1960s brought us the idea of "You can never be too rich or too thin" so it seems apparent that those two characteristics got merged in our minds.

And that's where I think it went off the tracks, because this class of people were also the determinants of where we are going culturally, it trickled down to the rest of us and we lost the distinction between being thin enough to get up on the runway with Twiggy, and not being so fat where your heath is impaired. Fashion vs. practicality. Then when doctors stopped prescribing the greenies to anyone who wants them, the people trying to sell us a bunch of diet stuff that doesn't work rushed in, and convinced us that everyone is going to hate us and we're all going to die if we are not as skinny as the people we see on TV.

My point is that we don't have a good grasp on the quantitative definitions of the various degrees of fatness, and for the reasons both of us have mentioned. Changes in medical diagnosis and treatment, smoking (tobacco) now being much less common, and a First World where no one is calorie restricted unless they choose to be. So that farmer with a belly under his overalls, Richard Simmons might have said that belly is killing him, but it might also be what gives him the energy to work sunrise to sunset and it's the way a healthy person should look. I'm not talking about someone who is so fat their abilities become restricted.

Your observation is the same as mine, from the early 1970s, where kids were almost all thin, and fat was something you got as you grew older. This was recognized to the point that in cartoons and illustrations older people and sometimes all adults were depicted as fat to distinguish them from children. And we ate the worst stuff! All the kids I knew were raised on Coca-Cola, PB&J, and Sugar Frosted Flakes! But what we didn't have- video games; we spent every minute we could outside being physical, and I think that is the significant change- not really diet but physical activity. It was what distinguished us from the fat adults back in the day, and what distinguished us from all the fat kids now.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Your observation is the same as mine, from the early 1970s, where kids were almost all thin, and fat was something you got as you grew older. This was recognized to the point that in cartoons and illustrations older people and sometimes all adults were depicted as fat to distinguish them from children. And we ate the worst stuff! All the kids I knew were raised on Coca-Cola, PB&J, and Sugar Frosted Flakes! But what we didn't have- video games; we spent every minute we could outside being physical, and I think that is the significant change- not really diet but physical activity. It was what distinguished us from the fat adults back in the day, and what distinguished us from all the fat kids now.
link to original post

That's not it. Unless you're an athlete the amount of physical effort you put in every day has very little to do with stable weight. It's an absolute fact that you can lose weight by just adjusting your calories and not getting one more bit of physical activity in your life. I've done it, people I know have done it, Rush Limbaugh did it and he talked about it all the time. It's a fact that after the 1960s they started making more and more and more processed food. In the 60s in my grocery store there was one frozen food aisle now there's probably three or four and they are gigantic and crammed with every processed fattening food you can think of. The snack aisle used to be not even an entire aisle. Now the snack asile never ends and there's more than one. When I was growing up there was no such thing as an in between meal snack. Maybe a banana if you were lucky. Now kids literally live on snacks they eat all day long. When I was in high school we had McDonald's and maybe a Burger King here and there. In the last 30 years fast food restaurants are everywhere you go, you cannot escape them and they always have people in the drive up line. It's true that kids are getting less exercise now but that's not why they're fat. They're fat because they eat too much and they eat too much of the wrong stuff, it's really that simple.

To me what's happened is too many adults are still adolescents in their minds. They still feel like they have to reward themselves with food during the day just like they did when they were 11 years old. Except now it's I worked all day I deserve an 18-in delivered Pizza and a six pack of beer. It's the weekend and I worked hard all week I deserve to eat take out fast food and drink beer all weekend. You'd be shocked at the number of people who think the crap they're getting at McDonald's and Burger King is the best food they've ever eaten. They are absolutely addicted to the fat sugar carbs and salt.

Quote: billryan

Another simple solution- drinking more beer will cause more bathroom breaks. mo' breaks=mo exercise. ipso- more beer is good for you.

That is the type of logic I can get onboard with.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

There's microwaved precooked boneless pork ribs, microwave precooked beef brisket, microwave pre-grilled chicken breast tenders, boiled corn on the cob, baked mac & cheese, and some pink lemonade-like product
link to original post

That meal looks great to me other than the sauce on the ribs.

Quote: DRich

That meal looks great to me other than the sauce on the ribs.
link to original post

No problem with the sauce on the brisket?
The sauce on the ribs came with the ribs; the brisket (and chicken, before it was grilled) has Sweet Baby Ray's No Sugar Added sauce.

I don't mean to offend those who enjoy it, but I always thought Mac and Cheese should be on the kiddie menu.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Your observation is the same as mine, from the early 1970s, where kids were almost all thin, and fat was something you got as you grew older. This was recognized to the point that in cartoons and illustrations older people and sometimes all adults were depicted as fat to distinguish them from children. And we ate the worst stuff! All the kids I knew were raised on Coca-Cola, PB&J, and Sugar Frosted Flakes! But what we didn't have- video games; we spent every minute we could outside being physical, and I think that is the significant change- not really diet but physical activity. It was what distinguished us from the fat adults back in the day, and what distinguished us from all the fat kids now.
link to original post

That's not it. Unless you're an athlete the amount of physical effort you put in every day has very little to do with stable weight. It's an absolute fact that you can lose weight by just adjusting your calories and not getting one more bit of physical activity in your life. I've done it, people I know have done it, Rush Limbaugh did it and he talked about it all the time. It's a fact that after the 1960s they started making more and more and more processed food. In the 60s in my grocery store there was one frozen food aisle now there's probably three or four and they are gigantic and crammed with every processed fattening food you can think of. The snack aisle used to be not even an entire aisle. Now the snack asile never ends and there's more than one. When I was growing up there was no such thing as an in between meal snack. Maybe a banana if you were lucky. Now kids literally live on snacks they eat all day long. When I was in high school we had McDonald's and maybe a Burger King here and there. In the last 30 years fast food restaurants are everywhere you go, you cannot escape them and they always have people in the drive up line. It's true that kids are getting less exercise now but that's not why they're fat. They're fat because they eat too much and they eat too much of the wrong stuff, it's really that simple.

To me what's happened is too many adults are still adolescents in their minds. They still feel like they have to reward themselves with food during the day just like they did when they were 11 years old. Except now it's I worked all day I deserve an 18-in delivered Pizza and a six pack of beer. It's the weekend and I worked hard all week I deserve to eat take out fast food and drink beer all weekend. You'd be shocked at the number of people who think the crap they're getting at McDonald's and Burger King is the best food they've ever eaten. They are absolutely addicted to the fat sugar carbs and salt.
link to original post

I imagine you can tell us the first company that introduced the first tv dinner was and it's contents evenbob