In 1 week I lost 13 lbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Nice alternate reality there... I think you were joking, right?

---

I'd say 50% joking, 50% serious. There is truth to it. Greeks (79.9) live longer than Americans (78), Brits (79.3), And Russians (67.6). However the Japanese live longest (82.5).

But it is surprising, considering 42% of Greek adults smoke, and heavily, compared to half that in the USA (20~%). And the disparity of public/private service available for the majority of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

I'd say 50% joking, 50% serious. There is truth to it. Greeks (79.9) live longer than Americans (78), Brits (79.3), And Russians (67.6). However the Japanese live longest (82.5).

But it is surprising, considering 42% of Greek adults smoke, and heavily, compared to half that in the USA (20~%). And the disparity of public/private service available for the majority of the population.

---

Aye. It's the paradox of Mediterranean Europe. The Greeks have some of the highest smoking and overweight rates, and lowest healthcare spending in the EU. Yet life expectancy is right up there with the best.

Not to mention, Greece had a difficult 20th century, was slow to develop. All those old people grew up, spend much of their life, in quite adverse circumstances.

Sheer quality of life, and normal, real food make up for a lot. To a large extent, the same holds true for Italy, Malta, Spain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

All this talk about food as something you need to recuperate from. Gah! There's something wrong with your food if you feel worse from eating lots of what you like instead of better.

Coffee and a fag, enjoying the sunshine with your mates - that's the key to a healthy old age. Diet is a good lunch, plenty of time taken for it. A nice meal in the evening, consumed sitting down, on a table, attention devoted to the meal and your company instead of a televion. Eat normal, 'real' food, things your grandma would've recognised.
So much better than constant worries about avoiding the worst of those weird post-industrial non-foods, from which you have to recover by endless physical torture merely to maintain what's left of your health.


https://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1217/cafegre.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

do you guys know how they determine whether a population is overweight right? with the bmi index. im like 206-7 right now and im not overweight, i should be 155 if i want to be normal sized. Im 6'1 thats a tiny weight, i could see 175 maybe. so i dont really know how honestly to take those statistics for america. i mean no doubt there are plenty of fatties here but i think 50% percent which is the new buzz number is a little ridiculous.

anyone care to enlighten me.

---

6'1, 207 lbs. That's 1.85 meter. 94 kilogram.

Me, I am 6'0 / 1.83. I weigh 160 lbs / 73. I'm considered normal, if perhaps, how shall I put it, slightly lacking the beef for rugby or some such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

This, of course!

(Yeah, there's really never been a clear distinction for me between what we call jams and what we call jellies. Some things are generally called jelly (I've never heard of a grape jam or apple jam) while others are always jams (I've similarly never heard of a raspberry jelly). Jello's one of those brand names like kleenex or bandaid that have come to mean the item rather than the brand here in the U.S. Calling jello a jelly just sounds really odd to me)

p.s. My wife informs me that jam has seeds or pulp, while jelly is made out of the juice and so doesn't have any chunkiness or texture to it.

Ajax

---

Hm, interesting. I thought when looking at your "jelly" that it looked a bit smooth to be called jam. But then, pretty much all jam has fruit pieces or pips in it over here.

Quote:

---

6'1, 207 lbs. That's 1.85 meter. 94 kilogram.

Me, I am 6'0 / 1.83. I weigh 160 lbs / 73. I'm considered normal, if perhaps, how shall I put it, slightly lacking the beef for rugby or some such.

---

exactly im a american football player and im not fat either. im right fast running 40 yard dash in 4.75 seconds (last i checked) and the mile in 6:013 minutes. 160 pounds on my frame (broad shoulders, thickish neck) would look like im starving. i can see may 180 for a minimum weight 9and once i stop lifting and join the military ill probably hit that weight) but i dislike when a stupid formula says im bloody obese.

im not fat i have a 34-5 waist. though we will see now that basketball is over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Man, I'd die from sheer stress having to take all of this nonsense into account. Eat this, eat that, exercise this way, that way.

Madness, I say!


Most Greeks grew up in far less abundance than 21st century US/Northwest European standards. They all smoke four packets of cigarettes a day. Can't keep their hands of the ouzo and wine either. Hospitals are so underfunded and full of obsolete equipment that your survival chances drop dramatically should you make the mistake of visiting one.

Yet all Greeks live to be ninety years old, in great physical and mental health. The Greek 'pensioner' works or tills his lands in the morning, dozes a bit in the afternoon, plays a game in the village square late afternoon, then spends the entire evening from six to one 'o clock eating and drinking. Olive oil, fish, lean meat and veggies. All fresh and unprocessed.
The more your diet and lifestyle resembles this, the longer, happier and healthier you live. Everything else is bollox that will only get you a heart attack at 48.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img31.imageshack.us/img31/6017/gregregre.jpg

---

I tend to agreed, with the addendum that retirement kills you. Once you retire you have less of a reason to keep living; this is why College Dons live so long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

6'1, 207 lbs. That's 1.85 meter. 94 kilogram.

Me, I am 6'0 / 1.83. I weigh 160 lbs / 73. I'm considered normal, if perhaps, how shall I put it, slightly lacking the beef for rugby or some such.

---

You weigh the same as I do!!

but the "tall viking"-thing seems to be malfunctioning, I'm 11cm shorter than a frenchie?!? Your surname better be Ericsson.

Your all stocky little inbred Europeans. My ancestors found a more diverse gene pool and thrived in it. :clown:

Stocky? No fat on this chap, my good sir! :toff:

but being Norwegian, I won't argue with the inbreed-thingy...

Quote:

---

Stocky? No fat on this chap, my good sir!

but being Norwegian, I won't argue with the inbreed-thingy...

---

for your women inbreeding obviously favors them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

exactly im a american football player and im not fat either. im right fast running 40 yard dash in 4.75 seconds (last i checked) and the mile in 6:013 minutes. 160 pounds on my frame (broad shoulders, thickish neck) would look like im starving. i can see may 180 for a minimum weight 9and once i stop lifting and join the military ill probably hit that weight) but i dislike when a stupid formula says im bloody obese.

im not fat i have a 34-5 waist. though we will see now that basketball is over.

---

Fat % is key. BMI and such may say you are overweight, but it doesn't take into account muscle mass vs fat mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Fat % is key. BMI and such may say you are overweight, but it doesn't take into account muscle mass vs fat mass.

---

BMI is a wonderful tool to use in statistics over large populations.

It's catastrophic when applied on an individual level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Your all stocky little inbred Europeans. My ancestors found a more diverse gene pool and thrived in it. :clown:

---

I am 6'6", 195-200cm approx.

Which means you are the stocky inbred, my friend.

Also, Swedish/Dutch/etc people are tall. I remember going to Holland and there were many people around my height. It is quite freaky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

This is just flat wrong. I've seen guys drop and gain hundredes of pounds before by counting calories, it's what stregnth sports are based on.

Now Idaho made a good point about macronutrients but Calories are still the most important thing.

A 500 calorie meal is a 500 calorie meal, eat only that and you will lose weight no matter what it is.

---

You are making a massive assumption which is distorting your understanding.

Just because you eat a meal with a calorific value of 500 - doesn't mean your body will absorb, or do the same thing with those calories.

Firstly, your body absorbs different food at different rates. What is shit made of? Fat and fibre. You don't get fat from eating fat. You shit most of it out.

Secondly, your body adjusts to it's diet. Put your body on reduced calories and it will start conserving energy.

Therefore the concept of a 500 calorie meal is nonsense. 500 calories of sugar will be rapidly absorbed by your body. 500 calories of nuts will not be.

Im with Idaho in this one.I dont know so much about dietiing as dont count normally calories in my meals. But from personal experience i can say that after i reached thirty something changed in my metabolism. Before that i had a good appetite and pretty much consumed anything i ate without getting fat. After 30 i started having some digestic issues and gained some weight quite rapidly.

After that point i changed my diet somewhat. More whole meat. compared to processed stuff. Less wheat of anykind compared to meat and vegetables, preferable whole grain bread( which i consume still too much because i just like to eat that damn bread too much ;)). I dropped soda alltogether and switched to water and milk with food and for thirst. Lastly i have started eating lots of nuts and almonds as snacks and i feel and look lot better now then in long time before. For me the daily calories intake is not such a problem. In the long run it seems in what form i take it seems to be lot more important.

Quote:

---

p.s. My wife informs me that jam has seeds or pulp, while jelly is made out of the juice and so doesn't have any chunkiness or texture to it.

---

I think that's pretty much right. Jelly is originally a liquid which is made to 'set'. This doesn't have to be fruit juice, it can also be meat juice (as in the jelly you get around pate). Jam is just mushed up fruit. It doesn't have a solid consistency. You can cut jelly, but cutting jam is a bit like cutting water. That's my understanding anyway.