|
You forgot the beer. 
|
|
|
|
|
A single yeast-culture is a bit different from the probiotics-culture in sauerkraut
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: 120 kg is enough to work as a bouncer
I am 6 ft 4 (195 cm) and pretty hefty, I have a 120cm chest measurement for example, but also fat. A gut. And it disgusts me. 
Yeah, kimchi too, any fermented stuff (except beer and wine) has good bacteria.
And yeah, no takeaway. I dont like takeaway anyway, I can cook way better at home, better than most restaurants, easilly. Thats part of the reason I got so big, I love food, I love cooking, and I love wine.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: it disgusts me.
Any motivation will do And after a bit time you'll get new rewards to keep you motivated - like having to buy lots new pants 
--edit
Munchies_Matt wrote: I dont like takeaway anyway, I can cook way better at home, better than most restaurants, easilly.
Never trust a skinny cook! But indeed, not very helpfull if you can cook great.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
First and foremost:
Ask a bunch of nerds on a programming forum!!! That'll go well. 
seriously,
Go see a dietitian or a nutritionist.
spend a few bucks getting a good nutrition plan based on your lifestyle and need and goal.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: Go see a dietitian or a nutritionist.
..and pay a lot for the latest official guidelines and nonsense.
You can keep your two liters of water per day
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Aint asking, just telling.
|
|
|
|
|
You're going to fail in the long term because you've bought into the fitness-industry-myths. No industry works to put itself out of business, if what the fitness industry told you about weight loss worked then they'd be doing just that, so everything they tell you is a lie. Lies you (and from the replies, every other person on this thread) believe, so you are, I'm afraid, doomed to fail.
Think about it...if losing weight or maintaining a healthy weight was such a complex balance of what you eat and chemical interactions then why aren't the intelligent nations healthy and the stupid nations fat? Why do you only get an obesity crisis in countries where manual labour is rare and food is in abundance?
|
|
|
|
|
 Because we like good food, and can afford it. 
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: You're going to fail in the long term because you've bought into the fitness-industry-myths
But I am not doing any 'fitness' so I cant have.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: doomed to fail.
I am dropping half a kilo a day. It works. It works for others, and it will work for me (In fact I have got down to 109 before doing the same diet) so you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: But I am not doing any 'fitness' so I cant have.
"Fitness industry" meaning the "health and fitness industry" so not just exercise but diet too.
Munchies_Matt wrote: I am dropping half a kilo a day. It works.
Probably not for the reasons you think though, and I said you'd fail in the long-term. When your weight loss stops, and even returns, you'll turn to the same sources to get a different set of lies and you'll then think "ah, so *this* is the right way to do it", and when that ultimately fails you'll repeat the process. Why do you think so many "new" diets come out and why the advice changes on a weekly basis? To fool you into thinking something new or different has been discovered, to fool you into thinking the fault was the fault of the last process you followed but *this one* will be better. You will continue on that treadmill endlessly, always repeating your mistakes.
1) Eat less
2) Move more
3) Win
"Hey look, I've stopped going to Dominos and Burger King and I've lost some weight...the only possible explanation for that is because I'm eating fewer carbs".
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Eat less
That is what I am doing. Why so negative?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Why so negative?
I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic. Your weight is a product of your lifestyle. If you can't maintain the way you eat now forever then only one thing can happen....you'll go back to your old lifestyle, so you'll also go back to your old weight. When the weight gains slow and possible even reverse what are you going to do then? Look for the next fad diet and start the process over.
The proper advice is out there, but you can't force people to follow it, the allure that losing weight and being healthy is some complex mystical science just seems more appealing to a lot of people for some reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is why I am changing my lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
|
Eating no carbs? You think you're going to spend the rest of your life eating no carbs? You know that's incredibly unhealthy and unreasonable? Here's a simple idea around a change of lifestyle that is realistic and maintainable....don't drink three glasses of wine a night...400-500 calories a day saving right there.
|
|
|
|
|
When I have got to a good weight I can on occasion eat refined carbs and sugars.
And no it isnt 'incredibly unhealthy and unreasonable'. Mankind didnt have refined carbs or sugars till about 200 years ago.
And no, not drinking red wine is NOT realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Ok, I'll leave you to your pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. When you finally crack the science make sure you go to Africa to spread the word there, maybe help lift those poor uneducated people from their obesity crisis too.
|
|
|
|
|
What on earth are you on?
It is not 'pseudo-science' to state, correctly, that refined carbs and sugars are a relatively recent introduction to our diet and that hence not eating them is in no way dangerous, or odd.
And WTF has Africa got to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
Your original post talked about carbs, not refined carbs and refined sugars. My reply was about carbs, you are now talking about refined carbs ergo are now fighting a straw-man argument as your actual arguments hold no weight.
|
|
|
|
|
Well since plant fiber is a carb, dont you suppose I was referring to the usual rice, potatoes, flour trio? (not to mention sugars)
F-ES Sitecore wrote: now fighting a straw-man argument as your actual arguments hold no weight.
Wow, I didnt realise me wanting to lose weight was such an argument. Apparently to some it is. You for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Well since plant fiber is a carb, dont you suppose I was referring to the usual rice, potatoes, flour trio? (not to mention sugars)
LOL so now we need to know what you mean, not what you say? Regardless, not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too.
Munchies_Matt wrote: Wow, I didnt realise me wanting to lose weight was such an argument.
I didn't say it was, I think it's fairly obvious the arguments I was referring to are your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry, that it is complicated, that you can maintain a no-carb lifestyle and all the other things you (and others) have repeatedly said on this thread.
Seeing as it looks like you're finally out of anything of merit to say there is no point dragging this onto semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: so now we need to know
So you never heard of the GI diet, refined carbs? Really? Do we need to tell you everything?
F-ES Sitecore wrote: not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too
Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat? FFS get real would you.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry
No I didnt. I never mentioned chemistry.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: So you never heard of the GI diet
Garbage fad diet that won't help you lose weight in the long-term.
Munchies_Matt wrote: Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat?
I said fairly unrealistic, not impossible....it's even in the text you quoted. Straw-man argument.
Munchies_Matt wrote: I never mentioned chemistry.
You might not have mentioned the literal word chemistry, but when you talk about sugars, fats, insulin and their effects that is chemistry - "the scientific discipline involved with compounds composed of atoms, i.e. elements, and molecules, i.e. combinations of atoms: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other compounds"
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong and full of sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
