The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I like food, I eat lots of it. But I'm not fat. Considering the amount I consume on average weekly, and my occupation, I should be fat but I do this little thing called "exercise", and I know how to cut back to maintain my health and (don't snigger) figure. So I don't see why I should be punished because a few people dotted around the country decided not to look after themselves, and sat in every night watching Eastenders and Coronation Street, open-mouthed and dribbling, no control over their bodily functions, until they became one with the sofa. "Punished?", you say, "They can hardly punish you - have you ever seen a fat man run? He'd die of exhaustion after 50 yards. His last words would be 'It *gasp* was *pant* Ne...al...'".
I'm clearly annoyed about something: that something is Weetabix. Or rather, the lack of it. Have you seen the portions you get nowadays? Tiny! I had to have 5 this morning because they've made them so small. But it isn't only the wonder-breakfast that is Weetabix - everything is getting smaller. It's all in response to the growing number of fatties that can't keep their chubby mitts out of the biscuit box. I think it's a measure that will backfire, though - they'll just put more in their bowl/face, like I had to this morning.
These gargantuans know there is something wrong with them (which is pretty perplexing, because wouldn't you take action if you had a life-threatening illness?), we see them on TV at all hours of the day, putting their bodies on show in some form of pity-act, when they've only got themselves to blame. I'm not talking about the morbidly obese people, that have genuinely got a reason to be the size they are. I mean the Waller-inspired mountains that get big because they're so damn lazy and have a defeatist attitude to helping themselves. It actually infuriates me that the problem has gotten so bad in our society, we're making unneccesary changes to products which have been available to healthy consumers for decades.
I have a solution. It lies not in food, but in clothes. Stop manufacturing above certain sizes and the population will have to adjust. Prescription clothes for those with proper problems. Sure, this could backfire and we'd see masses of naked blubber waddling up the street (like Orca beached himself in New Look), I accept this risk, but I think we've tried everything now except for shame. I'm only half-serious, of course, but what else is there? Nobody would accept a forced regime of exercise, or a mass-culling of jumbos.
But seriously, people will follow trends that are in shops, and if you make the better clothes in smaller sizes, then the people will have to follow suit (pun intended, yes I am so clever yo). Look at mobile phones. All the decent ones are on monthly tariffs, not Pay As you Go. you have to pay a King's ransom to get a nice-looking phone off a monthly scheme, but people will because it gives them freedom. An example of leading consumers by the nose, and it proves that they will follow. So yeah, I'm annoyed because my food was small, when it needn't have been because I'm not stupid and can resist the urge to eat packets of crisps and biscuits afterwards. Thanks for nothing, nation of fatsos.
I'm clearly annoyed about something: that something is Weetabix. Or rather, the lack of it. Have you seen the portions you get nowadays? Tiny! I had to have 5 this morning because they've made them so small. But it isn't only the wonder-breakfast that is Weetabix - everything is getting smaller. It's all in response to the growing number of fatties that can't keep their chubby mitts out of the biscuit box. I think it's a measure that will backfire, though - they'll just put more in their bowl/face, like I had to this morning.
These gargantuans know there is something wrong with them (which is pretty perplexing, because wouldn't you take action if you had a life-threatening illness?), we see them on TV at all hours of the day, putting their bodies on show in some form of pity-act, when they've only got themselves to blame. I'm not talking about the morbidly obese people, that have genuinely got a reason to be the size they are. I mean the Waller-inspired mountains that get big because they're so damn lazy and have a defeatist attitude to helping themselves. It actually infuriates me that the problem has gotten so bad in our society, we're making unneccesary changes to products which have been available to healthy consumers for decades.
I have a solution. It lies not in food, but in clothes. Stop manufacturing above certain sizes and the population will have to adjust. Prescription clothes for those with proper problems. Sure, this could backfire and we'd see masses of naked blubber waddling up the street (like Orca beached himself in New Look), I accept this risk, but I think we've tried everything now except for shame. I'm only half-serious, of course, but what else is there? Nobody would accept a forced regime of exercise, or a mass-culling of jumbos.
But seriously, people will follow trends that are in shops, and if you make the better clothes in smaller sizes, then the people will have to follow suit (pun intended, yes I am so clever yo). Look at mobile phones. All the decent ones are on monthly tariffs, not Pay As you Go. you have to pay a King's ransom to get a nice-looking phone off a monthly scheme, but people will because it gives them freedom. An example of leading consumers by the nose, and it proves that they will follow. So yeah, I'm annoyed because my food was small, when it needn't have been because I'm not stupid and can resist the urge to eat packets of crisps and biscuits afterwards. Thanks for nothing, nation of fatsos.
Page:
Chr1s wrote:
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk. I saw a program on it once, some
> bloke who claimed to be the heaviest in Britain (turned out not to be)
> hadn't left his house in years.
Was that the bloke who had a really weird haircut where he shaved off the first half of his hair and then combed the back half backwards and who had some woman running around after him getting him cream cakes etc?
Don't know whose the more stupid, him or her!
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk. I saw a program on it once, some
> bloke who claimed to be the heaviest in Britain (turned out not to be)
> hadn't left his house in years.
Was that the bloke who had a really weird haircut where he shaved off the first half of his hair and then combed the back half backwards and who had some woman running around after him getting him cream cakes etc?
Don't know whose the more stupid, him or her!
Jack!
He called his hair "Jack's Creation".
He called his hair "Jack's Creation".
I'd have called it Jack's abonomation! Wonder if he's dead yet?
Chr1s wrote:
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk.
Sorry if this sounds odd, but what is "junk" food? Is there such a thing? because it's still perfectly healthy food. It's just the fact that they eat too much of it.
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk.
Sorry if this sounds odd, but what is "junk" food? Is there such a thing? because it's still perfectly healthy food. It's just the fact that they eat too much of it.
Twain wrote:
> Chr1s wrote:
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and
> they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk.
>
> Sorry if this sounds odd, but what is "junk" food? Is there
> such a thing? because it's still perfectly healthy food. It's just the
> fact that they eat too much of it.
I've always thought of those things that are at the less healthy end of the scale to be junk food.
A big greasy burger isn't really going to be very good for you. Just one may not really do you any real harm, but it's sure as hell not going to be as good for you as an apple would be.
But you're right, the quantity of the food is the main factor in what makes them so fat.
> Chr1s wrote:
> The people who get really fat are the ones that never go out and
> they
> just sit inside all day and eat junk.
>
> Sorry if this sounds odd, but what is "junk" food? Is there
> such a thing? because it's still perfectly healthy food. It's just the
> fact that they eat too much of it.
I've always thought of those things that are at the less healthy end of the scale to be junk food.
A big greasy burger isn't really going to be very good for you. Just one may not really do you any real harm, but it's sure as hell not going to be as good for you as an apple would be.
But you're right, the quantity of the food is the main factor in what makes them so fat.
You don't even have to eat a huge amount of junk food to get fat though, you just have to eat it on a regular basis. with little exercise.
I wonder if those here who are 'skinny but can eat anything' now will be those who turn 50 with an expansive belly cultivated over the years, claiming 'my metabolism slowed down'...
I wonder if those here who are 'skinny but can eat anything' now will be those who turn 50 with an expansive belly cultivated over the years, claiming 'my metabolism slowed down'...
Basically, a lot of overweight people like junk food because it's cheap (cheap = more) and it fills them up a fair bit.
There's also a misguided belief that its considerably quicker. Somebody I vaguely know has decided to take her 2 year old kid to McDonalds every evening because she doesn't have time to cook after work (a standard 9-5 job). She's now pushing 20 stone.
In order to get to the diner at least 10 minutes of extra driving is required. Add that to a 5 minute wait for food (including the queue) and you have 15 minutes. Its not particularly difficult to put together a reasonable meal in that time. A simple, healthy example:
A little sugar, plenty of soy, some sherry (the cheapest you can find, at this amount will only cost about 10p) some oil (sesame if possible) some cornflour, heat it up, dunk in some chopped peppers, some mushrooms, some tuna and a little garlic if you're bored for 20 seconds. Serve with rice, easy. A nice little chinese stir fry in the space of 15 minutes guaranteed. Very healthy despite the sugar and oil. It also costs less than the McDonalds and takes about the same amount of time to get to the plate (or bag in the case of McDonalds, another reason why it seems senseless to eat fastfood regularly).
Anyway, if the above ingredients are too much effort to find, or if the little baby didn't like chinese (ridiculous that it was already eating McDonalds)... forget all that stuff and just serve tuna with some pasta and a few vegetables. Very little to do there.
In order to get to the diner at least 10 minutes of extra driving is required. Add that to a 5 minute wait for food (including the queue) and you have 15 minutes. Its not particularly difficult to put together a reasonable meal in that time. A simple, healthy example:
A little sugar, plenty of soy, some sherry (the cheapest you can find, at this amount will only cost about 10p) some oil (sesame if possible) some cornflour, heat it up, dunk in some chopped peppers, some mushrooms, some tuna and a little garlic if you're bored for 20 seconds. Serve with rice, easy. A nice little chinese stir fry in the space of 15 minutes guaranteed. Very healthy despite the sugar and oil. It also costs less than the McDonalds and takes about the same amount of time to get to the plate (or bag in the case of McDonalds, another reason why it seems senseless to eat fastfood regularly).
Anyway, if the above ingredients are too much effort to find, or if the little baby didn't like chinese (ridiculous that it was already eating McDonalds)... forget all that stuff and just serve tuna with some pasta and a few vegetables. Very little to do there.
Coatsy wrote:
> Basically, a lot of overweight people like junk food because it's
> cheap (cheap = more) and it fills them up a fair bit.
Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison. They like it because it requires no effort.
> Basically, a lot of overweight people like junk food because it's
> cheap (cheap = more) and it fills them up a fair bit.
Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison. They like it because it requires no effort.
Whitestripes DS wrote:
> Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison.
Actually, not true. It fills them up initially but because of the sugar, it has a high Glycemic Index. Before long, they feel hungry again. Needless to say, they don't attribute this to the food, but to their appetite. This mass comsuption of food, is what makes the cost build up.
> Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison.
Actually, not true. It fills them up initially but because of the sugar, it has a high Glycemic Index. Before long, they feel hungry again. Needless to say, they don't attribute this to the food, but to their appetite. This mass comsuption of food, is what makes the cost build up.
Page: