Fun fact...
Replies
-
The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
I think maybe the point has become how much you have to spend to eat healthy depends on where you live.
1 -
Without workout clothes, I would have to go the gym naked, I would get banned and then I wouldn't be able to work out and I wouldn't lose any weight. It's a vicious cycle11
-
Fun Fact: I enjoy gadgets, gear and new clothes. I enjoy seeing the metrics that activity trackers provide because it motivates me. My enjoyment of these things makes the hard work of losing weight and getting back in shape more fun and enjoyable. And when things are fun and enjoyable, I keep doing them. That doesn't mean I'm a sheep to the fitness industry. It means I know which tools work for me and I use them accordingly.8
-
The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
Hahahahahaha ok ok im done. Im over it:p0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
I think maybe the point has become how much you have to spend to eat healthy depends on where you live.
Hahahahahaha im over it. It made sense too me lol.. no one is wrong! I just think what i meant in my head was taken abit outta context here:p1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????1 -
Hahahajanejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Haha im actually laughing because there NOT wrong:p and i think its funny there arguing you CAN and i know you CAN lose eating whatever you want. It was more whats more cost effective i guess i was getting at rather then CICO aspect.. thank you for understanding:p0 -
although that is true, i don't know if i would have continued running, without my running watch.it's a huge motivation looking at your stats at the end of a run and seeing the progress through the numbers.I almost had a panic moment last week when i woke up in the morning and realised i forgot to charge it. Thankfully it only took half an hour to charge it at 75%,and i went out for my 9k run feeling happy.
Now running clothes..nah i don't feel like spending 50 euro on a pair of running leggings, i'll just wear a normal pair.As long as it's elastic and not restrictive, i'm good to go.1 -
Kinda like you can go and buy 200 worth of spegetti and it last prob 6 months to a year but spend 200 on healthy eats and eat for 2 weeks MAYBE lol0
-
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
But good food doesn't always cost more money. Where you live clearly plays a role.
We live on a farm and grow most of our fruits and vegetables. It would cost me a lot more to eat premade or boxed foods like pizza or mac and cheese than it would vegetables.1 -
Y'all must have been bored yesterday and today!4
-
Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
You spend money on crap you don't need.3 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
I think it's funny that someone is chastising people for spending our money on things that make weight loss more fun and/or easier.
I can guarantee you my activity tracker does not collect dust, nor do my weights, nor does my skipping rope or my treadmill...it's not me complaining actually about the cost of things...
it's you....complaining that the diet industry is too expensive, that activity trackers are too expensive etc.
kettle meet pot.
BTW I bet your mom had good runners for that 4 miles otherwise she was damaging herself.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Satiety is an important part of weight loss, but the foods that promote it aren't necessarily more expensive than those that don't. Eating a giant bowl of salad that costs $15 isn't the only way to feel full.
I do think it is wrong that one can't eat pasta and lose weight. I also think it is wrong that one *must* spend more money on groceries in order to lose weight (although I don't know, it could be the case in Canada).3 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
So coming out to attack those people who are exercising their prerogative must be doing something for you. If what other people spend their money on is of no consequence to you than I question the attack on said people. I know a lot of people who succeed with gadgets or without, and people who fail with or without the same gadgets, work out clothes, gym memberships etc.... etc.... It is not the gadgets (or whatever else they may have purchased) that causes failure. However many people find these tools to be of a great benefit and calling these people sheep and ranting and putting people down for their use of such is of no help to anyone.7 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
Fitbits and treadmills are the reason why more families require two incomes today?
Okay.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
You spend money on crap you don't need.
Yup bet she has a Gi for BJJ...doesn't need it tho, heavy bag drills???? HIIT Treadmill...wow.
so here is someone spending money on either 1. Gym membership or 2 Gear for the house and tellings others they are sheep too rich...too rich.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Satiety is an important part of weight loss, but the foods that promote it aren't necessarily more expensive than those that don't. Eating a giant bowl of salad that costs $15 isn't the only way to feel full.
I do think it is wrong that one can't eat pasta and lose weight. I also think it is wrong that one *must* spend more money on groceries in order to lose weight (although I don't know, it could be the case in Canada).
See I don't find a salad filling...at all unless it's loaded with cheese, bacon and chicken...that gets expensive.
Satiety I think is a personal thing for sure but I also know that the mental game of having a plate full vs half a plate full can play into this as well.
Do we need to spend more money to lose weight (for food) no...but to lose weight, maintain it, be fit and healthy yes we do.
I think that is the other side of the coin of no extra food is needed to lose weight.1 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
Good. For. Her. Now get off my fitness pal go put on sweats and start running. All this time spent on the useless tool and you could be doing things the easy cheap way.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Satiety is an important part of weight loss, but the foods that promote it aren't necessarily more expensive than those that don't. Eating a giant bowl of salad that costs $15 isn't the only way to feel full.
I do think it is wrong that one can't eat pasta and lose weight. I also think it is wrong that one *must* spend more money on groceries in order to lose weight (although I don't know, it could be the case in Canada).
See I don't find a salad filling...at all unless it's loaded with cheese, bacon and chicken...that gets expensive.
Satiety I think is a personal thing for sure but I also know that the mental game of having a plate full vs half a plate full can play into this as well.
Do we need to spend more money to lose weight (for food) no...but to lose weight, maintain it, be fit and healthy yes we do.
I think that is the other side of the coin of no extra food is needed to lose weight.
Whether or not someone has to spend more on food in order to lose weight, maintain that loss, and be fit is going to be really dependent on what they were spending before and where they are in the world.
I spend *less* than I did when I was overweight. This may be unusual (I honestly have no idea), but it's possible for some people. The staples of my diet (shredded cabbage, frozen vegetables, canned beans, potatoes, tofu, pasta, oats) are inexpensive and I supplement them with produce that is in season.1 -
While your at it you should prob open your food journal so we can see everything WE think your doing wrong:)4
-
Those are just examples. Do you need a list of all the gimmicks and pills and supplements that people spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on? Come on now..janejellyroll wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
Fitbits and treadmills are the reason why more families require two incomes today?
Okay.
0 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »
Those are just examples. Do you need a list of all the gimmicks and pills and supplements that people spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on? Come on now..janejellyroll wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
Fitbits and treadmills are the reason why more families require two incomes today?
Okay.
how are treadmills gimmicks? how are activity trackers gimmicks? pedometers have been around for years as have HRM...this just combines the two
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Satiety is an important part of weight loss, but the foods that promote it aren't necessarily more expensive than those that don't. Eating a giant bowl of salad that costs $15 isn't the only way to feel full.
I do think it is wrong that one can't eat pasta and lose weight. I also think it is wrong that one *must* spend more money on groceries in order to lose weight (although I don't know, it could be the case in Canada).
See I don't find a salad filling...at all unless it's loaded with cheese, bacon and chicken...that gets expensive.
Satiety I think is a personal thing for sure but I also know that the mental game of having a plate full vs half a plate full can play into this as well.
Do we need to spend more money to lose weight (for food) no...but to lose weight, maintain it, be fit and healthy yes we do.
I think that is the other side of the coin of no extra food is needed to lose weight.
Whether or not someone has to spend more on food in order to lose weight, maintain that loss, and be fit is going to be really dependent on what they were spending before and where they are in the world.
I spend *less* than I did when I was overweight. This may be unusual (I honestly have no idea), but it's possible for some people. The staples of my diet (shredded cabbage, frozen vegetables, canned beans, potatoes, tofu, pasta, oats) are inexpensive and I supplement them with produce that is in season.
it's not just food...exercise gear (fit) costs money...
The point some of us are trying to make is this.
No it doesn't cost to lose...if you just want to a scale number to change...but there is more to it than a scale number.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
You spend money on crap you don't need.
Yup bet she has a Gi for BJJ...doesn't need it tho, heavy bag drills???? HIIT Treadmill...wow.
so here is someone spending money on either 1. Gym membership or 2 Gear for the house and tellings others they are sheep too rich...too rich.
I'm not here to lose weight. I'm a competitive athlete. I can't fight and train safely without the proper equipment required for the sport. If I just wanted to lose weight and wasn't competing I'd do just as my mom did. I should market the "Mom Diet" bet some fool would be willing to pay money for it.
0 -
Savagedistraction wrote: »
Those are just examples. Do you need a list of all the gimmicks and pills and supplements that people spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on? Come on now..janejellyroll wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Savagedistraction wrote: »unfortunately the OP is incorrect.
Losing weight does cost money. Do you need "special" gear...yes you do.
If you go for a walk without the proper shoes it hurts (been there done that)
If you go for a run in jeans yah...okay
You need proper shoes and clothing for the activity....that does cost money.
The "healthy" food is more expensive than "easy foods" so chances are your grocery bill will go up.
Not trying to discourage just throwing a dose of reality in here...
I have a fitness tracker...it helps but not necessary
I do not go to a gym
I do however have 3 pairs of runners (walking/running), I have spent funds on weights and proper clothing (keeps the girls in check when running) among other items of clothing that are required for what I do.
I am not a sheep but get to enjoy what I am doing I have to have the proper gear to do it...it's a must have not a nice to have thing....and if you are serious you get that too...
As usual...people take a statement and make assumptions. I said EXPENSIVE workout clothes. You don't need 100$ yoga pants to do yoga. They will not make you better at yoga. By all means though...spend thousands of dollars on *kitten* you don't actually need because a TV commercial tells you so, only to lose weight temporarily and then gain it back (like most dieters). Is the goal is to LOSE WEIGHT, then yeah, no reason you need a bunch of gadgets to do that. If you play sports then that is different. Your goal is probably performance based, or you are competing. That is not what I'm talking about here. The diet industry wants to convince you that you need their crap to lose weight or be on the cutting edge. They promise a quicker way. An easier way. A way that gives you something to talk to your friends at the water cooler at work about. You don't have to fall for it.
Ya know, had you not posted in such a condescending way, complete with the name calling (sheep to be specific) people wouldn't be so irritated about the post.
Thankfully I don't care about offending people. If people want to spend their hard earned dollars on crap they don't need then of course that's their perogative. It's curious however, that the same crowd are often the first to complain about "how expensive things are these days, and families just can't make ends meet anymore". How our grandparents could raise families on one income etc. Yeah..they didn't spend their money on fit bits and exercise equipment that collected dust in the rec room of their 3500+ square foot house that they needed to buy buy because their old house was too small for all their stuff they bought. I remember my mom losing weight in the early 80's. she put on sweat pants and went out side and ran around our neighbor hood. She started by jogging from one telephone pole to the next then walking for 2 just around the block. Each day she ran a little more, walked a little less until she was running 4 miles a day (she actually drove the route in the car to find out how far it was). She ate the same food we always ate. She'd make up her plate, then carefully remove 1/3 of the normal portion she'd usually eat and put it back in the serving bowl/plate. She lost 50 pounds this way.
Fitbits and treadmills are the reason why more families require two incomes today?
Okay.
Are we still talking mfp here.. if im not mistaken we go against all of that.. you never stated pills ect.. you said tools then went on to say your mi. Never used anything fancy so clearly you wernt talking about pills ect.. this sounds like a common case of jealously.. you speak a huge game with little back up..1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »The point isnt the spagetti anyways. I used it as a figure of speech since here in canada isnt nearly as cheap as the states. If you go shopping and spend like 40 bucks we pay like 70.. thats not technical math lol but it wasnt meant literally and i think its comical how many of you took it seriously. Ok how about this. We can go into our superstore and buy a huge pizza for 5 bucks but that big salad will cost you about 15 here.. so.. if you went and bought a 5 dollar pizza everyday ate the whole thing would you lose weight? Maybe but prob not and ita not healthy.. 15 dollars for your salad everyday and you would prob lose weight but you cant eat that salad over tome cuz you would prob want it all. But that pizza would last you all day but you would have to fight to drop weight like that.. its expensive here.. maybe the spagetti thing was maybe more of a canadian saying.. lol
The point is that you could just eat *less* of the pizza you were already eating. If it puts you at a deficit, you could lose weight. And since you're now eating that pizza over several meals (instead of all at once), you would be spending less on your food than before (and, if you wanted, you could apply some of that savings to buying fresh fruits and vegetables if you were not already doing so).
It doesn't cost more to eat less. If you choose to buy more expensive foods when you're losing weight, then you will spend more. But that's just like . . . common sense. Buying more expensive foods -- whatever those are in your part of the world -- is going to cost more whether one is losing weight or not.
feeling full is an important part of weight loss...eating "good" food helps with that...good food costs more money.
That's the other side of the coin.
as I have said losing weight does not cost more money...but what is the point of losing weight if you aren't going to maintain it and you won't maintain it if you don't enjoy what is happening...if you are hungry because you are eating half a box of KD versus 1 box you are bound to gain it back...but if you eat 1 chicken breast and veggies chances are you are going to be fuller longer...
both are correct but you are both arguing the rightness of both answers like the other is wrong...when they aren't...
again...if you lose weight and don't maintain it and get fit and healthy what is the point????? punishment for being fat????
Satiety is an important part of weight loss, but the foods that promote it aren't necessarily more expensive than those that don't. Eating a giant bowl of salad that costs $15 isn't the only way to feel full.
I do think it is wrong that one can't eat pasta and lose weight. I also think it is wrong that one *must* spend more money on groceries in order to lose weight (although I don't know, it could be the case in Canada).
See I don't find a salad filling...at all unless it's loaded with cheese, bacon and chicken...that gets expensive.
Satiety I think is a personal thing for sure but I also know that the mental game of having a plate full vs half a plate full can play into this as well.
Do we need to spend more money to lose weight (for food) no...but to lose weight, maintain it, be fit and healthy yes we do.
I think that is the other side of the coin of no extra food is needed to lose weight.
Whether or not someone has to spend more on food in order to lose weight, maintain that loss, and be fit is going to be really dependent on what they were spending before and where they are in the world.
I spend *less* than I did when I was overweight. This may be unusual (I honestly have no idea), but it's possible for some people. The staples of my diet (shredded cabbage, frozen vegetables, canned beans, potatoes, tofu, pasta, oats) are inexpensive and I supplement them with produce that is in season.
I imagine I spend a little less on myself. But I wasn't overeating by much and was already eating mostly healthy foods. I didn't make many changes to my diet for weight loss other than to lower calories a bit.
But I still grow the same amount of food as always. I may can or freeze or give away a little more. It's hard to figure how much is spent on what we eat, but we aren't spending anymore money on food over all.
I do spend money on fitness but we've always spent money on things to stay active (basketball hoop, softball equipment, snowshoes, kayaks, hiking shoes, etc.) I'm doubt I'm more fit now than when I was overweight because I've always been fit.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions