Patsy Kensitt and That weight watcher ad

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

I think I need a cupcake..

 

[pauldavid]

Well I had 6 pints of Tetley bitter followed by a half bottle of Brandy last night.

I must have lost roughly half a stone since getting up this morning cause I've never been off the bloody pot and I've got no appetite whatsoever.

In summary, I can heartily recommend it as a form of diet. Maybe OTH would like to run us through the merits and drawbacks of my own particular scheme as an expert in this field.














How did I end up in this field?

 

[Marshmallow_Fluff]

^

 

[ufkacbln]

Also, while we're nitpicking, sugar is a carbohydrate

Wasn't there a theory about the age of Bananas and their effectiveness as fuel

IIRC ...

Green or yellow bananas have long sugar chains that take time to break down and therefore are good for "slow burn" fuel.

Brown or black bananas have shorter sugar chains and these don't need to be broken down so the energy is delivered more quickly

So you need to carry a range of bananas

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Wasn't there a theory about the age of Bananas and their effectiveness as fuel

IIRC ...

Green or yellow bananas have long sugar chains that take time to break down and therefore are good for "slow burn" fuel.

Brown or black bananas have shorter sugar chains and these don't need to be broken down so the energy is delivered more quickly

So you need to carry a range of bananas

This is correct.

 

[Over The Hill]

Youve been suggesting 3 large meals so no.

Going over 5 hours what?

Clearly if you have a certain work pattern to accomodate then there needs to be some flexibilty. You only tell us what you eat up to 12.45. Point I made was to eat a decent meal that fills you up and you then forget about food until the next meal. As you have five hours between breakfast and the next meal then you seem to be doing this at least for the first half of your day.
It is simply the case that browsing tends to lead to eating lots of junk snacks and not being in control of what you eat. For a woman on 1500 calories, just an extra four-finger kit-kat adds 215 calories or an extra 14% which is enough get into a spiral of weight gain.
I do accept that the three meals per day proposal is not ideal for some people for various reasons. Where it works is that is removes the constant crave for food and keeps it in control within set times of the day.

I do accept that some people may eat ten small snacks and be OK with it. But the thread was about weight watchers which suggests we are talking about people who presently are overweight and ways of dealing with that.

 

[Over The Hill]

Look, different diets and styles of eating suit different people and routines. Why don't you all just shut the f up and go and have a piece of toast/nut cutlet/Mars Bar...

I am all for that actually. Good call Arch (as usual)

 

[ufkacbln]

Look, different diets and styles of eating suit different people and routines. Why don't you all just shut the f up and go and have a piece of toast/nut cutlet/Mars Bar...

Deep fried Mars Bar?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Clearly if you have a certain work pattern to accomodate then there needs to be some flexibilty. You only tell us what you eat up to 12.45.

Anyone with a basic grasp of numbers will easily determine that I listed 3 meals out of a potential 6 (at the least 5 per day). Try not to cherry-pick too obviously.

Point I made was to eat a decent meal that fills you up and you then forget about food until the next meal. As you have five hours between breakfast and the next meal then you seem to be doing this at least for the first half of your day.

I do eat decent meals, I also forget about food until the time time I eat. Your point is what?

It is simply the case that browsing tends to lead to eating lots of junk snacks and not being in control of what you eat. For a woman on 1500 calories, just an extra four-finger kit-kat adds 215 calories or an extra 14% which is enough get into a spiral of weight gain.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that I "browse" but anyway as said twice now. I don't.

I do accept that the three meals per day proposal is not ideal for some people for various reasons. Where it works is that is removes the constant crave for food and keeps it in control within set times of the day.

As said before. So does 5-6 smaller portions. Perhaps for those used to snacking, eating better and more regularly will do more good than 3xlarge portions.

Why do you not consider GI a major factor in snacking?

I do accept that some people may eat ten small snacks and be OK with it. But the thread was about weight watchers which suggests we are talking about people who presently are overweight and ways of dealing with that.

You don't accept anything except your own point of view,which has been pretty well challenged already. 3 large meals isn't the only way to deal with overweight people.

 

[Over The Hill]

Anyone with a basic grasp of numbers will easily determine that I listed 3 meals out of a potential 6 (at the least 5 per day). Try not to cherry-pick too obviously.

I do eat decent meals, I also forget about food until the time time I eat. Your point is what?


I'm not sure if you're suggesting that I "browse" but anyway as said twice now. I don't.


As said before. So does 5-6 smaller portions. Perhaps for those used to snacking, eating better and more regularly will do more good than 3xlarge portions.

Why do you not consider GI a major factor in snacking?


You don't accept anything except your own point of view,which has been pretty well challenged already. 3 large meals isn't the only way to deal with overweight people.

You are the one who only gave us half your meal pattern. I am not suggesting you snack but given that you state there is five hours between breakfast and the next meal then you seem to be in agreement with me that you can quite happily eat a decent meal and last through five hours until the next. I am only going by the info you gave. I dont know what if anything you ate later.
"I do eat decent meals, I also forget about food until the time time I eat. Your point is what?"
My point is that this is exactly what I feel is a good pattern of eating and you seem to support my point and disprove other posts that seem to say we need to drip feed outselves at two hour intervals.
Clearly if you are leaving a decent gap between meals and not eating between them then you are not browsing.
GI? Here is a link http://www.nhs.uk/Change4Life/Pages/change-for-life.aspx to NHS website on healthy eating . No mention of GI there. You will find they say what I am saying, eat less fat and sugar and concentrate on eating good square meals. To quote them re breakfast
"Getting the best start to the day by having a good breakfast is an important part of being healthy. But many of us are missing out, choosing breakfast options that are high in sugar or fat, or not having anything at all. Eating breakfast gives us the energy we need until lunchtime and can help to cut-down on snacking throughout the morning. "

Oddly though, I do this, you seem to do this, but still you are attacking me. So really I have no idea what I am saying that you actually disagree with. As I said above, perhaps we should leave it there.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

You are the one who only gave us half your meal pattern. I am not suggesting you snack but given that you state there is five hours between breakfast and the next meal then you seem to be in agreement with me that you can quite happily eat a decent meal and last through five hours until the next.

Yes I can and do 7days a week. But I consider the GI of the foods I eat and obviously there would be a difference between porridge and frosties for example.

Then again. The point I addressed with that info didn't require a detailed plan of what I do in a day.

I am only going by the info you gave. I dont know what if anything you ate later."I do eat decent meals, I also forget about food until the time time I eat. Your point is what?"

That is true, it is also true that Einstein's IQ isn't required to fill in the blanks. But then we aren't discussing my habits indepth, moreso the idea that smaller portions more often can suit.

My point is that this is exactly what I feel is a good pattern of eating and you seem to support my point and disprove other posts that seem to say we need to drip feed outselves at two hour intervals.
Clearly if you are leaving a decent gap between meals and not eating between them then you are not browsing.

Your point over the past 2 pages (or more) has been 3 meals per day. All well and good for some, but you refuse to address glycemic indexing which inevitably on 3 meals or 6 per day, is much more of a factor than you want to admit to.

GI? Here is a link http://www.nhs.uk/Change4Life/Pages/change-for-life.aspx to NHS website on healthy eating . No mention of GI there. You will find they say what I am saying, eat less fat and sugar and concentrate on eating good square meals. To quote them re breakfast
"Getting the best start to the day by having a good breakfast is an important part of being healthy. But many of us are missing out, choosing breakfast options that are high in sugar or fat, or not having anything at all. Eating breakfast gives us the energy we need until lunchtime and can help to cut-down on snacking throughout the morning. "

So that would be low GI breakfasts then over bowls of sugar coated frosties/shreddies and whatever else. ie: the lower GI breakfast releases it's energy slowly.

Oddly though, I do this, you seem to do this, but still you are attacking me. So really I have no idea what I am saying that you actually disagree with. As I said above, perhaps we should leave it there.

I agree with the bold entirely. I am done with you.

 

[Over The Hill]

So that would be low GI breakfasts then over bowls of sugar coated frosties/shreddies and whatever else. ie: the lower GI breakfast releases it's energy slowly.

I agree with the bold entirely. I am done with you.

Just two points-
1. You clearly are aware that I advocated a low fat and low sugar diet but then seem to think that I promoted "sugar coated frosties". It appears you are just throwing random things at me that are quite different to what I have said. You actually only seem to disagree with things I have not said and you have made up.
2. You finish with a step over to the standard hurling abuse at the person mode which as I have pointed out before is not at all necessary and really I do not want to deal with people who are being unpleasant in this way. I am not going to stoop to your level and hurl abuse back but you can fill in the blanks yourself. It is rather sad that you have to sour CC in this way so "I am done with you" is a rather welcome end to your post.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Just two points-
1. You clearly are aware that I advocated a low fat and low sugar diet but then seem to think that I promoted "sugar coated frosties". It appears you are just throwing random things at me that are quite different to what I have said. You actually only seem to disagree with things I have not said and you have made up.

It's called providing an example, an example of two different breakfasts which will have two different effects. I never once said you promoted "sugar coated frosties" but once again your own cherrypicking leads you to confusing yourself.

2. You finish with a step over to the standard hurling abuse at the person mode which as I have pointed out before is not at all necessary and really I do not want to deal with people who are being unpleasant in this way. I am not going to stoop to your level and hurl abuse back but you can fill in the blanks yourself. It is rather sad that you have to sour CC in this way so "I am done with you" is a rather welcome end to your post.

Your eyes, dry them. Do you think people want to deal with you and your cherry-picking, failure to understand ways? This would have came to a conclusion pages ago when User was posting if you'd just concede that you know nothing about the subject.

Don't dare talk about stooping to levels,people have been trying and failing to find one at which you will understand what is being said.With that in mind, I'd rather not stoop to your level, wherever that turns out to be.

 

[Herbie]

Anyway, she ain't a patch on Carol Vorderman.

Yeah....i've always fancied her but i think shes had a boob jobbie...shes got a lot of front these days