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

wamydia

whats red and smells like blue paint?

hey now there will be no huffing in this thread

red paint?

FitterStrongerHappier

You don't like when people disagree with you, I get it

I don't like it when people say things that are nonsensical and wrong, particularly when they do it in a snobbish rude way. There's a difference

Hmm.. referencing the definition of 'snob':
being or characteristic of a person who has an offensive air of superiority and tends to ignore or disdain anyone regarded as inferior

Per Merriam Webster - funny though - ones acceptance of others opinions and not claiming that their own opinion is the only one that is correct, would not lead me to believe my responses were 'snobbish'. On the other hand, ignoring or having disdain for someone else's opinion because it doesn't agree with yours... that seems to fit more. Don't you think? i.e., Pot, meet kettle..

jonnythan

You don't like when people disagree with you, I get it

I don't like it when people say things that are nonsensical and wrong, particularly when they do it in a snobbish rude way. There's a difference

Hmm.. referencing the definition of 'snob':
being or characteristic of a person who has an offensive air of superiority and tends to ignore or disdain anyone regarded as inferior

Per Merriam Webster - funny though - ones acceptance of others opinions and not claiming that their own opinion is the only one that is correct, would not lead me to believe my responses were 'snobbish'. On the other hand, ignoring or having disdain for someone else's opinion because it doesn't agree with yours... that seems to fit more. Don't you think? i.e., Pot, meet kettle..

Nope.

You're overweight because you ate too much food. It doesn't matter if you ate nothing but milkshakes or nothing but broccoli.

Whether you ate milkshakes or broccoli, you ate too much food and that's why you're overweight. Obviously it would have taken a much larger volume of broccoli than milkshakes.

Your claims are completely nonsensical, and the silly smileys and superior snobbish attitude don't change that.

CubanSammich

Oh mylanta, terrible info. Fat people, please don't read OP..smh

FitterStrongerHappier

You don't like when people disagree with you, I get it

I don't like it when people say things that are nonsensical and wrong, particularly when they do it in a snobbish rude way. There's a difference

Hmm.. referencing the definition of 'snob':
being or characteristic of a person who has an offensive air of superiority and tends to ignore or disdain anyone regarded as inferior

Per Merriam Webster - funny though - ones acceptance of others opinions and not claiming that their own opinion is the only one that is correct, would not lead me to believe my responses were 'snobbish'. On the other hand, ignoring or having disdain for someone else's opinion because it doesn't agree with yours... that seems to fit more. Don't you think? i.e., Pot, meet kettle..

Nope.

You're overweight because you ate too much food. It doesn't matter if you ate nothing but milkshakes or nothing but broccoli.

Whether you ate milkshakes or broccoli, you ate too much food and that's why you're overweight. Obviously it would have taken a much larger volume of broccoli than milkshakes.

Your claims are completely nonsensical, and the silly smileys and superior snobbish attitude don't change that.

Again, we can agree to disagree - but - calling me snobbish and superior is a bit backward, as I never claimed to be the only one with the correct view. You can say it all you want, but it won't change the fact that you feel your outlook is the only correct one in the world - and there is nothing more snobbish than that. No matter how much you try to point the finger otherwise.

pcastagner

to say that they ate too much food would be rather silly, in that circumstance. They didn't, they had an over abundance of calories for their expenditure.

That's what "ate too much food" means.

Not to everyone. Obviously. We will agree to disagree. if said example switched out a protein shake for the milkshake, it may take longer for the one to gain the extra weight, but he still would. And the amount of food would be the same Roughly.

My definition of 'too much food' is based on quantity/volume. "too much FOOD".
It sounds like your definition of 'too much food' is based on CALORIES

Two completely different views. really they do not mean the same thing AT ALL.

Yes, to everyone.

"Eat too much food" means "once you have eaten a quantity of food sufficient to maintain your weight, you continue to eat more food."

It necessarily means more calories. It also means volume. Whatever food you consume after you've had enough food is too much food.

That's what people mean when they say it. They mean that you keep eating even after you've had enough.

LOL. OK - Find me the public definition that meets what you listed above, and I will concede. To me, it just looks like we have different opinions. Let me let you in on a secret, just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean that they are wrong - or that the rest of the world is wrong. I'm simply saying that people view it differently. For you to state that the whole world agrees with you, is a bit pompous. Like I said, if you can prove this is the generally accepted view, instead of your opinion, I will stand corrected. I also find it amusing that you assume that everyone magically knows when they have had enough calories. People on here will or should, but I wouldn't say the general population does.

:flowerforyou:

Putting a little flower after a post where you call someone pompous doesn't make you something other than rude.

When someone says you "eat too much food" it means that you continue to eat food after you've had enough food to maintain your weight.

That's just how it is. Period, end of story. No one in the history of ever said "you eat too much food" and meant it the way you keep saying it.

I am sorry if you think I was being rude - but implying that your opinion is the only one that could ever have any truth to it and the rest of the world agrees with you, without anything to back it up - well I am at a loss for words to describe that view other than what I used. And obviously you are discounting my personal experience then, and having seen this behavior myself. I, on the other hand, never said that people don't have views such as yours, I just said I know that there are VARYING views on this subject, and I accept that. You're not accepting of that fact, and are stating as fact, your opinion, without any facts to back it up, other than your opinion.

You don't like when people disagree with you, I get it, but that doesn't change the fact that you should at least ACCEPT the fact that there are people out there who have different views and beliefs than your own. Assuming your view and belief is the only one out there - is - well - ... OK - I'll refrain from saying it, as nothing more apt comes to mind, and I have no intention of being rude.

http://bit.ly/12WjiLp

taso42

this thread has the makings to be legendary

myuhmaya

I think most likely yes for most people.

jonnythan

You don't like when people disagree with you, I get it

I don't like it when people say things that are nonsensical and wrong, particularly when they do it in a snobbish rude way. There's a difference

Hmm.. referencing the definition of 'snob':
being or characteristic of a person who has an offensive air of superiority and tends to ignore or disdain anyone regarded as inferior

Per Merriam Webster - funny though - ones acceptance of others opinions and not claiming that their own opinion is the only one that is correct, would not lead me to believe my responses were 'snobbish'. On the other hand, ignoring or having disdain for someone else's opinion because it doesn't agree with yours... that seems to fit more. Don't you think? i.e., Pot, meet kettle..

Nope.

You're overweight because you ate too much food. It doesn't matter if you ate nothing but milkshakes or nothing but broccoli.

Whether you ate milkshakes or broccoli, you ate too much food and that's why you're overweight. Obviously it would have taken a much larger volume of broccoli than milkshakes.

Your claims are completely nonsensical, and the silly smileys and superior snobbish attitude don't change that.

Again, we can agree to disagree - but - calling me snobbish and superior is a bit backward, as I never claimed to be the only one with the correct view. You can say it all you want, but it won't change the fact that you feel your outlook is the only correct one in the world - and there is nothing more snobbish than that. No matter how much you try to point the finger otherwise.

The difference is that your claim doesn't make a lick of sense, and mine does. :laugh:

MsJulielicious

Know what this thread needs?
Kittehs!

pcastagner

My definition of 'too much food' is based on quantity/volume. "too much FOOD".
It sounds like your definition of 'too much food' is based on CALORIES

See, there is your problem. Your definition of "too much food" is "wrong".

Here, let me help you with a definition:


1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

jenjencin78

I was fat because I ate too much food. Yes. I stopped eating portions meant for 2-3 people and started exercising thus reducing CALORIES and guess what. Not fat anymore!

urbliss777

^ My thoughts exactly XP BWHAHAHA....

FitterStrongerHappier

My definition of 'too much food' is based on quantity/volume. "too much FOOD".
It sounds like your definition of 'too much food' is based on CALORIES

See, there is your problem. Your definition of "too much food" is "wrong".

Here, let me help you with a definition:


1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

OK ok. I give up. As my closing argument, I leave you with what GOOGLE defines as 'too much food'... per google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=too+much+food&client=firefox-a&hs=gtt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=92kAUuvkJaHhygGX4oGoCg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1138&bih=480

obviously I am not alone in this view. :laugh:

jonnythan

My definition of 'too much food' is based on quantity/volume. "too much FOOD".
It sounds like your definition of 'too much food' is based on CALORIES

See, there is your problem. Your definition of "too much food" is "wrong".

Here, let me help you with a definition:


1. Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.
2.
a. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
b. Unfair; unjust.
3. Not required, intended, or wanted: took a wrong turn.
4. Not fitting or suitable; inappropriate or improper: said the wrong thing.
5. Not in accord with established usage, method, or procedure: the wrong way to shuck clams.
6. Not functioning properly; out of order.
7. Unacceptable or undesirable according to social convention.
8. Designating the side, as of a garment, that is less finished and not intended to show: socks worn wrong side out.

OK ok. I give up. As my closing argument, I leave you with what GOOGLE defines as 'too much food'... per google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=too+much+food&client=firefox-a&hs=gtt&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=92kAUuvkJaHhygGX4oGoCg&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1138&bih=480

obviously I am not alone in this view. :laugh:

A Google search doesn't mean Google has defined anything. It's a search engine.

Despite that, none of the links have anything in them to support the "too much food means nothing other than total volume" theory. Most of them are links to a Jason Mraz song about eating more food than he needs to be full. Which is kinda funny because that's what I said.

FitterStrongerHappier

A Google search doesn't mean Google has defined anything. It's a search engine.

Despite that, none of the links have anything in them to support the "too much food means nothing other than total volume" theory. Most of them are links to a Jason Mraz song about eating more food than he needs to be full. Which is kinda funny because that's what I said.

True - however - since the "IMAGES" depicting "TOO MUCH FOOD" are undoubtedly displaying what I was talking about, it means that a significant amount of people view these images to represent what "TOO MUCH FOOD" means. i.e., I'm far from alone in my opinion.

jonnythan

A Google search doesn't mean Google has defined anything. It's a search engine.

Despite that, none of the links have anything in them to support the "too much food means nothing other than total volume" theory. Most of them are links to a Jason Mraz song about eating more food than he needs to be full. Which is kinda funny because that's what I said.

True - however - since the "IMAGES" depicting "TOO MUCH FOOD" are undoubtedly displaying what I was talking about, it means that a significant amount of people view these images to represent what "TOO MUCH FOOD" means. i.e., I'm far from alone in my opinion.

You mean the images don't display a quantity of food larger than necessary to maintain weight?

FitterStrongerHappier

A Google search doesn't mean Google has defined anything. It's a search engine.

Despite that, none of the links have anything in them to support the "too much food means nothing other than total volume" theory. Most of them are links to a Jason Mraz song about eating more food than he needs to be full. Which is kinda funny because that's what I said.

True - however - since the "IMAGES" depicting "TOO MUCH FOOD" are undoubtedly displaying what I was talking about, it means that a significant amount of people view these images to represent what "TOO MUCH FOOD" means. i.e., I'm far from alone in my opinion.

You mean the images don't display a quantity of food larger than necessary to maintain weight?

Simply, what I mean is this: when someone says "YOU ARE FAT BECAUSE YOU ATE TOO MUCH FOOD", the images are what, at least SOME PEOPLE, are envisioning. Volume, amount, etc. if we take this at face value, and really that is all it should be, as when someone makes a comment they're not thinking deeply about calories in and calories out (UNLESS they are deeply familiar with it and think that way normally), they just mean - you ate too much (Insert appropriate google image from prior post here).

Anyhow - I may or may not respond after this. It's late, I'm tired, and It's pretty obvious that there are some people who refuse to accept the fact that people may think differently than they do. I'm not saying right wrong or indifferent - the argument WAS and has been, what a person means when they make that comment - truth is, some people mean calories, some people mean gluttony. To state that every person in the world, when making that comment, means calories, or even intake vs. expenditure, assumes that everyone understands or is aware of these things. It is obvious that is not the case. I've seen the comment made, referencing volume of food. To tell me that I am making that up, is in essence calling me a liar, and I'm tired of that. You have a view, I respect that. I respect that there are different views - I am disappointed that you refuse to believe that I have seen this with my own eyes, refuse to believe that people CAN mean this when they make the comments. We got away from the initial point, which was that is what has been said, and meant, by certain people. You either accept that this happened, whether or not you agree with it, or you do not. Some people think this way, whether or not you choose to believe it.

jdm_taco

OP whats your point? :laugh:

Personally I was fat because I was greedy and lazy

Same here.... very greedy and very very lazy

Im still really lazy, but just exercise as well. I love laying on my a55 not doin chit.

red869

I can kind of see where you're coming from OP, although even if your logic isn't quite there, I don't understand why people are being so rude about it. Wouldn't it be easier to ask you to clarify or explain to you why you're incorrect in a nicer way? Wow! I do not understand the hate for your post at all.

My TDEE is under 2000 calories and having just one burger and chips meal, with condiments and a drink, (approx. 2200+ calories), can mean that I've eaten over that. However, if I were to eat healthier, lower energy-dense foods with a higher volume, then I could have breakfast, lunch and dinner, plus snacks and still be under my TDEE, therefore I'd lose weight. I think this is what you were implying, correct me if I'm wrong!