'you're fat therefore you were eating too much food'... NO

djeffreys10

Your premise is, well, wrong. Yes, they were eating too much. People can lose weight eating nothing but cake. But if they eat too much cake, they will gain weight.

How calorie dense the food is determines what too much of the food is. In calorie dense food, less volume is still too much. So yes, they were eating too much.

barkin43

Yup, eating too much [wrong kind of] food. That's my story.......




And I'm sticking to it!

_Waffle_

I'm so sick of seeing this 'logic' splashed over the boards. I ate less when I was big than I do now. I just ate different, more calorific food.

4 donuts OR 2 bananas, an apple, and 20 grapes. I'm eating so much more now.

DiabolicBooger

people tend to use medical conditions as excuses for their over eating. like everyone else I here stated, You are dead wrong!

nomeejerome

OP:
I think you might be a bit con.fus.ed.

MoreBean13

1/10 for incorrectness

usmcmp

When they say you're fat therefore you were eating too much, they mean calories. Which is true by the way.

IamOnMywayNow

OP are you for realz? That makes NO sense!!

eric_sg61

In on roll bread

TheSlorax

OP:
I think you might be a bit con.fus.ed.

I for one am very confused. I don't really understand how eating too much and being fat is not at all like, well, eating too much and being fat.

whierd

I love the irony of you quoting "logic" in your OP and then using false logic.


At least you spelled "you're" correctly.

fivethreeone

False logic. Too much food does not mean that your piece of cake was too big; it means too many calories.

The volume of food you eat has nothing to do with the number of calories it contains.

Hmmm... this feels a bit like the lb of fat vs lb of muscle debate.

OP - Volume is implied!

You can have a cup of almonds for 700+ calories or you can have a cup of blueberries for 80 calories.

Volume isn't implied. There is no corellation between calories and volume. When people say too much food, they mean too many calories

Ed98043

I *think* what she meant was bulk. Like, number of bites or actual mass of the food. It's easy to eat a relatively small mass of food and gain weight if that food is high in calories. But many people think that if you're fat you must be a glutton that's stuffing your face constantly all day, and that's just not true.

sub10orbust

I'm so sick of seeing this 'logic' splashed over the boards. I ate less when I was big than I do now. I just ate different, more calorific food. When people say they are struggling to get to calories it's sometimes because they are genuine about doing this and they have restricted themselves to lean meat, veges, and not much else, all really low fat and low cal, because that is what they heard for years and they don't know that there is another, more effective way.

People being sanctimonious and throwing about the 'you must know how to eat because you're fat' line is ridiculous. Everyones scenario is a little bit different and while the same solution (in variations) will work for everyone, NOT everyone is fat because they ate too much bulk of food, their balance was simply off. Or, like me, they had an accident and that, coupled with a thyroid problem and (at the time) ignorance of BMR led me to put on weight.

end rant

calibriintx

skullshank

Acg67

Eat more to weigh less

fivethreeone

I *think* what she meant was bulk. Like, number of bites or actual mass of the food. It's easy to eat a relatively small mass of food and gain weight if that food is high in calories. But many people think that if you're fat you must be a glutton that's stuffing your face constantly all day, and that's just not true.

She did mean bulk.

Which is weird, because that's not what anybody else means.

Qarol

Mgregory723