Patsy Kensitt and That weight watcher ad

[Arch]

You were a right fatty when I saw you last...

I don't think you have anything to worry about weight-wise, Arch. You looked fit and healthy to me (that said, anyone looks fit any health compared to me at the moment, I'm such a lard-arse since I haven't been able to cycle to work every day).

Yeah, I think I last saw you a couple of years ago. That would have been at my lower weight....

I am technically a bit overweight. Or under height. But I work physically, outdoors all day, which keeps me fit. I'm in bed with a flu-like virus just now, but it's my first lengthy absence (4 days) due to illness in three years in the job.

Hopefully NT and I will be able to cycle more this year - his ruptured tendon made last summer rather sedentary... Plus there's the small matter of a house to renovate.

 

[Over The Hill]

As I don't want an otherwise interesting thread to be locked, I think I'll just do a dellers and add you to my ignore list.

Sorry but the abuse was coming from you towards me. I pointed it out to you twice.

You seem to be arguing with everything i say just for the sake of it.

 

[User169]

I actually produced peer reviewed evidence (the Medical Research Council trials) to back up my suggestions (that Weight Watchers has been shown to be effective).

The second study (referring to the order in which you cited them) sponsored by none other than.....Weight Watchers!

 

[pauldavid]

Veterans aren't in the forces, they were in the forces. How is this a forces problem? Sorry could you clarify your position? In your opinion, should we treat alcoholic / drug addicted veterans or not?

Not

 

[Over The Hill]

It was funded by WW but overseen by the MRC, which means that it will have been kosher...
...unless you're calling the ethics and credibility of the Medical Research Council into question.

You do seem to miss the fact that it was simply a comparison of the two methods WW or the doctor. WW got a better rate of sticking with it. They would be expected to.

The research however did not look at the two methods in comparison to any other methods or indeed what happend in the year following the subjects being on WW.

I seem to get the idea that you work for WW. I can see no other reason for such a blinkered outlook on the world.

 

[redcard]

Sorry - checked again it is actually 150 calories per 100g . But still my point is that it is a relatively low calorie food and should not be on the excluded list with fat and sugar.
100g is about the amount in a lasagne, a normal portion would be more.
Basically if anyone wants to work out how much pasta or rice or bread or potatoes they would eat over a day and then work out the calories in that food, they would most certainly be well under the calorie intake target on any weight loss diet.
Carbs tend to fill you up and if you are full you forget about food, so it is not an obsession. You just think about food at a meal time which comes along three times a day, at the point you start feeling hungry. The body is not pumping out "find food" messages all day.
If you cut out carbs and snack you are constantly running on empty and thinking about the next snack. A bit like driving around in your car and only filling it with one gallon of petrol, the fuel light will always be on. Also without carbs you end up with an over-rich diet as it is not bulked out.

You're being a bit disingenuous here, or you're getting cooked and dry weights mixed up. A normal portion of pasta (100g) refers to the dry weight, and that is over 300 calories per portion. Your 100g cooked would be pretty miserly.


Edit. Sorry! See this has been answered already.

 

[Over The Hill]

I'm beginning to have my opinion that you don't know your arse from your elbow reinforced.

You clearly can't read the research nor understand research methodology. You have yet to produce any evidence, rather than anecdote, to support your contention that WW doesn't work.

No - I don't work for WW. I just happen to know what I'm talking about - unlike you.

So firstly more personal attacks on me. Despite the two times I have raised it and the post at 101 from the mods.

Oddly you give nothing to support your argument but somehow want everything from me.

I think I have had enough of you so you are now on my ingnore.

 

[grumpyoldgit]

Is horse more fattening than beef?

 

[ianrauk]

Is this argument still going on?

A classic always worth a repeat.

 

[martint235]

Is horse more fattening than beef?

No apparently it's better for us.

I eat a lot of carbs but I still have the "Find me food" message from my body all the time.....

 

[Over The Hill]

You're being a bit disingenuous here, or you're getting cooked and dry weights mixed up. A normal portion of pasta (100g) refers to the dry weight, and that is over 300 calories per portion. Your 100g cooked would be pretty miserly.
Edit. Sorry! See this has been answered already.

While you are on the point, we seem to have got side tracked by someone onto picking over numbers. The point arose because someone cut out pasta from a diet to reduce their weight. I said that was misguided and to illustrate the point stated that if you ate the normal amount of food needed to fill you up but only ate pasta you would not be consuming anything like your RDA of calories.
(The 100g was within a lasagne with lots of other ingredients.)

The links that Constipator put up showed a portion to be around 260cal which I think was 100g dry and 180g cooked. So how many portions would replace a normal food intake? I think perhaps 5 at the most for a man which is then 1300calories in a day.

I think my objection is generally to lumping carbs in with fat and sugar as the bad guys. Removing carbs tends to lead people to eat an over rich diet with not enough quantity in. So you are hungry and stay fat!

This is a widely supported view not unique to me, but just happens to not be the latest fad idea.

 

[yello]

I worked with Patsy's brother Jamie once. He's a top bloke.

As you were.

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

While you are on the point, we seem to have got side tracked by someone onto picking over numbers. The point arose because someone cut out pasta from a diet to reduce their weight. I said that was misguided and to illustrate the point stated that if you ate the normal amount of food needed to fill you up but only ate pasta you would not be consuming anything like your RDA of calories.
(The 100g was within a lasagne with lots of other ingredients.)

The links that Constipator put up showed a portion to be around 260cal which I think was 100g dry and 180g cooked. So how many portions would replace a normal food intake? I think perhaps 5 at the most for a man which is then 1300calories in a day.

I think my objection is generally to lumping carbs in with fat and sugar as the bad guys. Removing carbs tends to lead people to eat an over rich diet with not enough quantity in. So you are hungry and stay fat!

This is a widely supported view not unique to me, but just happens to not be the latest fad idea.

Stop ridiculing yourself any further by insisting in naive comments that only prove you ignorance.

Knowing when to admit defeated is sing of wisdom and a virtue that clearly you do not possessed.

As for the no-starch carbs diets are well known in many names and very healthy approach in nutrition. It was also part of my tailor made plan in the past by RSTCS the group of nutritionists that treat well known members of the sports world.

 

[pauldavid]

I worked with Patsy's brother Jamie once. He's a top bloke.

As you were.

Did you ever meet her whilst working with her brother and if so, did she ever offer you sex as a reward for losing weight!?

 

[yello]

Did you ever meet her whilst working with her brother and if so, did she ever offer you sex as a reward for losing weight!?

Not that I recall, but I am getting forgetful in my old age.

At that time, and obviously I don't know if it's still the case, they didn't have the best of relationships and weren't really speaking. I recall coming into work one morning and remarking that I'd seen the headline on some paper about Patsy being pregnant. His response was something along the lines of 'is she? I wouldn't know'.