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

FitterStrongerHappier

I, too, think the OP implied VOLUME - eating a large amount of 'food' does not necessarily automatically equal large amount of calories.

You can eat smaller VOLUME, and still consume a TON of calories. Milkshakes, an easy way to get in over 1000 calories in a glass - vs drinking water - same VOLUME - guaranteed if you have 3 milkshakes a day vs 3 large glasses of water, you're bound to gain weight, and that's just ONE example. Add in mayo laden, cheese laden, butter laden anything, and you've got calorie dense foods that pack on the pounds, with small volume.

Anyhow - we could use a thousand examples here, I get what the OP was implying, and agree 100%. I've eaten both ways, calorie dense, and non calorie dense, same amount of food by volume, and lost weight one way, gained it the other. Pretty simple if you ask me.

I think you missed my point. Yes, OP is talking about volume of food versus calorie density. My point is, just like with the lb of fat vs lb of muscle debate, when people tell her that she is fat because she ate too much, the volume of food is implied.

No.

When people say she ate too much food, they're talking about any particular food. They're saying that, whatever type of food she eats, she eats too much of it.

I'm not sure I agree with this - my personal experience is that if people generalize the 'too much food' rule, they just think people that are overweight, eat tons of junk food all the time. this is not necessarily true. Two people who eat exactly the same, workout the same, and are otherwise burning the same number of calories, you could tip the balance by simply adding in one large milkshake per day to one of their diets. Over time, they could gain 50 lbs, and be 50 lbs heavier. Yet put those 2 side by side, and the immediate assumption by the general public, is that one pigs out on junk food all day. People, who are NOT on this site, not aware of calories in vs. out, can easily jump to the conclusion that someone sits and eats multiple cheeseburgers, fries and shakes at every meal, just because they are 50 lbs overweight. I get what the OP is saying, and have seen the ignorance. People just assume and it can be frustrating being judged by those that have no idea what they are talking about.

cmcollins001

If you were fat, you ate too much food.

that depends on what your definition of too is...

More than one...duh!

amandzor

You were fat because you were eating too many calories.

#thetruthhurts

UsedToBeHusky

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

But a cup of blueberries has more water, and therefore, less mass by volume, than a cup of almonds, and likewise, less calories.

BTW shouldn't we be weighing these almonds and blueberries since they aren't actually liquids?

Yes, but my point is that that correlation is simply coincidental. Whether you weigh it or not, the volume itself is not responsible for the number of calories, the caloric density is an independent property.

Well I thought the analogy was good sense the "logic" of volume being implied is what is missing in both scenarios.

Fullsterkur_woman

I see her point, though, in reverse. I'm accustomed to eating a large volume of food. I struggle mightily with portion control if access to low-calorie/high-volume food is limited. People will just say "well, only have a tiny piece of X then". Why? So I can be p'd off that I just got a hint of something delicious and now my stomach is grumbling?

The way I read what she was saying was that some overweight people came to be that way by eating small volumes of very calorie-dense foods. When you switch them to high-volume, low-calorie food, it becomes very difficult for them to eat enough calories in a day. You see people with a lot of weight to lose, and consequently a higher calorie goal for the day, not eating all their calories, and people telling them they need to eat more food. And these people struggle with being able to keep their calories high enough. They're not accustomed to being able to eat the volume of food that a balanced, nutritious diet will take up. Sure, if they can eat pizza and milkshakes and ding-dongs they can reach their calorie goal, but then they're not eating enough nutritious food.

I don't have the answers in all cases, of course, but in my case the answer seems to be high-volume, low-fat, high-protein with liberal amounts of vegetables, fruits, and starches thrown in. For the people who struggle to eat enough calories, maybe choosing higher-fat meats and dairy, using more added fats, and snacking on nuts might be helpful while they're acclimating to eating way more nutritious and slightly more voluminous food, then lowering the fats as the stomach acclimates to more volume, so they can get even more protein and plants in.

Alluminati

Win! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

prdavies1949

If you were fat, you ate too much food.

that depends on what your definition of too is...

adverb
1.
in addition; also; furthermore; moreover: young, clever, and rich too.
2.
to an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable, fitting, or right: too sick to travel.
3.
more, as specified, than should be: too near the fire.
4.
(used as an affirmative to contradict a negative statement): I am too!
5.
extremely; very: She wasn't too pleased with his behavior.

deksgrl

I eatz, therefore I am.

Lyadeia

Thank you, OP, I needed that belly laugh.

mantium999

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

But a cup of blueberries has more water, and therefore, less mass by volume, than a cup of almonds, and likewise, less calories.

BTW shouldn't we be weighing these almonds and blueberries since they aren't actually liquids?

This made my day. Thank you.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

Yeahnokthnxbye

kelseyhere

stop making excuses for other people. pretty much everyone who is fat ate too much, didn't move enough. end of story.

SpeSHul_SnoflEHk

1/10 for incorrectness

Did you give the 1 for using words?

brevislux

That's not what people are saying...

SpeSHul_SnoflEHk

What cracks me up is the number of responses to this post, when there hasn't been anymore by the OP. It's like she came in here, dropped an illogical bomb on everyone, then walked out.

Does this really surprise you? It's a rant post that would hav ebeen better suited fo her wall than a post. I know what you mean though. A simple giflaughing at her logic (or lack thereof) was all the response that was necessary.

trudijoy

What's utterly hilarious is that I threw this up, thinking to come back to it, then went off to do something and came back to this.....

I LOVE where this has gone and the responses on it. Cracks me up.

Knew it would be controversial and well done to the people who actually got it, I thought it was clearer than it perhaps was to some.

1) no I'm not using my medical condition etc as an excuse. I clearly say I was eating out of balance

2) i'm not fat now, because I AM eating in balance

3) that imbalance wasn't caused by sitting eating all day every day - in fact I have a history of self starvation - when you have a metabolic disorder, you can eat almost nothing for a month and put on weight/become sick

4) I have seen on the board a million times people told 'whatever of course you can eat over xxx calories, you're fat aren't you?' - and THAT attitude is the one that annoys me.

As you were, quite enjoying watching the descent into chaos

Mia_RagazzaTosta

What's utterly hilarious is that I threw this up, thinking to come back to it, then went off to do something and came back to this.....

I LOVE where this has gone and the responses on it. Cracks me up.

Knew it would be controversial and well done to the people who actually got it, I thought it was clearer than it perhaps was to some.

1) no I'm not using my medical condition etc as an excuse. I clearly say I was eating out of balance

2) i'm not fat now, because I AM eating in balance

3) that imbalance wasn't caused by sitting eating all day every day - in fact I have a history of self starvation - when you have a metabolic disorder, you can eat almost nothing for a month and put on weight/become sick

4) I have seen on the board a million times people told 'whatever of course you can eat over xxx calories, you're fat aren't you?' - and THAT attitude is the one that annoys me.

As you were, quite enjoying watching the descent into chaos

I'm not sure I understand what's to "get"

FitterStrongerHappier

stop making excuses for other people. pretty much everyone who is fat ate too much, didn't move enough. end of story.

Who said anything about making excuses? It's a pretty basic fact that a calorie imbalance is what will lead to excess fat, or lack thereof. No excuses here - just pointing out that 'too much food' if that food is veggies, isn't going to make you fat. Yet a normal size cheeseburger, fries, and shake, when eaten regularly, WILL make you fat (if it's along with other meals in the same day of the same calorie content). Too much 'food', i.e., 'volume/amount', does not make one fat by default. Nothing about excuses, just about people slamming other people for being gluttons, when it doesn't take gluttony to gain weight. You could be a glutton with veggies, and not gain an ounce - replace that with milkshakes, and WHAM!

sub10orbust

What's utterly hilarious is that I threw this up, thinking to come back to it, then went off to do something and came back to this.....

I LOVE where this has gone and the responses on it. Cracks me up.

Knew it would be controversial and well done to the people who actually got it, I thought it was clearer than it perhaps was to some.

1) no I'm not using my medical condition etc as an excuse. I clearly say I was eating out of balance

2) i'm not fat now, because I AM eating in balance

3) that imbalance wasn't caused by sitting eating all day every day - in fact I have a history of self starvation - when you have a metabolic disorder, you can eat almost nothing for a month and put on weight/become sick

4) I have seen on the board a million times people told 'whatever of course you can eat over xxx calories, you're fat aren't you?' - and THAT attitude is the one that annoys me.

As you were, quite enjoying watching the descent into chaos

rowanwood

I feel dizzy now. What just happened?