Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

I workout 5x a week - why don't I lose any weight?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
nancyburns@gmail.com - 19 Mar 2007 04:22 GMT
in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
strengthening work 2x a week - he also has me on a running program
that I do myself 3x a week.

it is now march.  with the exception of a vacation I took in jan. and
the holidays, I have been dedicated to this routine.

I feel much more fit.  I can jog 3 miles now when I couldn't walk it
before without being winded.  I can lift 25lb. weights in both
arms....

BUT...

I have only lost 3 lbs.  THREE.  My clothes don't fit any better and
the scale doesn't get any lower.  my doctor would like me to lose 20
lbs.

it's not looking good.

what is the problem here?
Jake - 19 Mar 2007 05:02 GMT
> what is the problem here?

What are you eating?
Jbuch - 19 Mar 2007 10:51 GMT
> in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
> personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> what is the problem here?

Failure to do the right critical diet exercise.

Lift just the right amount of food from plate to mouth. Excess food
lifting from plate to mouth will cause weight gain.
John Timney (MVP) - 19 Mar 2007 12:32 GMT
If you have a personal trainer, he should be able to explain this to you -
he should have measured your body fat at the outset and should be able to
advise on what changes to make to change your body size and shape. Dont be
overly convinced that because he has you exercising thats enough for him to
do.  He should be advising on diet and altering your routine regularly to
challenge your body to react.

Your probably eating the wrong things, but it could simply be that you are
slowly converting body tissue from fat to muscle and muscle is simply
heavier - and at somepoint you'll begin to lose visible fat.  If I regulalry
work out my jeans get loser but my weight doesn't shift that dramatically at
all - maybe only a few pounds over a month and thats OK.  If your working
out regularly and your not over eating and leaving spare calories to store
overnight then you will lose/shift weight, and you must be at least altering
your fat/muscle ratio or you would not be getting fitter.  Simplest ratio -
if you eat more calories in a day that you use - you wont lose weight no
matter how much you exercise.  Your personal trainer should be able to
advise you on this - if not - change him!

Regards

John

> in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
> personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> what is the problem here?
Roger Zoul - 19 Mar 2007 14:14 GMT
1) for weight loss, diet is the number 1 factor.  You need to find a way to
eat less.
2) why do you think you need to continue to see a personal trainer (a few
sessions can be very helpful)?  Is this for motivation?  If so, do you plan
to pay this person for ever?  A couple of good books is much more likely to
lead to long-term benefits, assuming you don't mind reading and learning on
your own.  However, if that's not you, continue with the PT, but point out
that you need to focus on weight loss. Also, ask yourself what's going to
happen if you quit using a PT one day.
3) think about this.  You can eat 600 calories of food in under a minute,
but how long does it take to work off that many calories doing exercise?
4) as another poster said, since you're using a PT, he/she should have
measured bodyfat % so that you can track changes in body composition in
addition to scale weight.  people new to weight training can add muscle and
lean body mass rather quickly, so fat loss can be hidden on the scale.
However, typically, one will see changes in "inches " with the tape measure.
If you haven't, that's probably not the best of signs. Frankly, I'd be very
unhappy with your PT.
5) have you tried a LC diet in addition to your weight training?
6) have you considered counting calories?  If you're not that much
overweight, you may not realizing that you're simply eating too much.  10x
bodyweight in calories is a good place start for weight loss.  if that
doesn't work after 2 weeks, drop 1x bodyweight in calories per two weeks
until you start to see the scales move. Do this while maintaining your
exercise routine.
7) consider, as you have found, that exercise has benefits beyond weight
loss. You've improved fitness, which is really good.  Now all you need to do
is tweak things more for weight loss.  Likely, just eating 500 kcals less
per day will give you 1 lb per week of loss.  Have you tried this (an
alternative to 6)?  since you didn't mention it in your post, it seems to
suggest that you aren't considering the "intake" side of the equation at
all.  Again, for weight loss, intake (ie, diet) is more important than
exercise mainly because most people can out eat what they can typically do
in terms of exercise (assuming you're a typical adult with
responsibilities - pro athletes fit in another catagory).

What's your age, weight, and height?

BTW, in your opening you said you decided to get 'fit'. Well, I think you
did that (to some degree, anyway).  Perhaps now you need to lose some
bodyfat.  Generally, you get what you seek.

health & fitness aren't the same thing. One can be fit and overweight and
healthy all at the same time.  However, fitness for any activity does tend
to improve as one approaches normal weight.  A 150 lb man is more likely to
be "fit" for cycling than a 300-lb professional bodybuilder who is in
competitive shape.

One can be fit, normal weight, and unhealthy, too.  One can be unfit, normal
weight, and unhealthy.  Etc. :)

:: in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
:: personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
::
:: what is the problem here?
Pat - 19 Mar 2007 15:35 GMT
What he said, plus: Why are you "taking vacations" from exercising? It's
only March and you've already had 2 "vacations."  Why?

Pat in TX
Aaron Baugher - 19 Mar 2007 16:12 GMT
> I feel much more fit.  I can jog 3 miles now when I couldn't walk it
> before without being winded.  I can lift 25lb. weights in both
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the scale doesn't get any lower.  my doctor would like me to lose 20
> lbs.

Exercise is very good for you, for many different reasons.  It's also
almost completely irrelevant to weight loss, at least taken by itself.
Since you don't mention diet at all, I assume you're expecting
exercise alone to do it, boot-camp style, while you eat a "normal"
diet, but that takes several hours of working yourself to exhaustion
every day.

A couple years ago, my sisters and I started a "Couch Potato to 5K in
9 Weeks" plan one of them found on the net, where you ran three times
a week, gradually increasing from 60 second running/walking intervals
the first week to the full 5K by the last couple weeks.  My sisters
were both considerably more overweight than me, by percentage of body
weight anyway, but we all stuck to it.

This was a major increase in exercise for all of us, and when we
started, it seemed impossible that we'd be able to run 5K within a
couple months, but we did.  We also bicycled at least a few miles on
the days we weren't running.  Ten weeks after we started, we ran in
the Hannibal Cannibal, a very challenging 5K/10K run held every year
in Hannibal, Missouri.  We all finished, not with great times (I took
just under 10 minutes/mile), but we were certainly proud of our
achievement.

Here's the thing, though: none of us lost any weight.  This was a huge
jump in physical activity for three straight months (we continued
running for a while after the race), and we certainly got stronger and
better conditioned, but we didn't lose a bit of fat.  I was on sort of
a vague maintenance at the time; not eating a lot of carbs, but not
really avoiding them either, so I certainly was never in ketosis for
any extended amount of time.  My sisters were avoiding eating fat, of
course, and getting plenty of potatoes and pasta.

Here's the cool thing, in your case:  You're already exercising and
seeing the benefits of that, which means you're already producing a
lot of the hormones that will help you burn fat, as soon as you start
providing the right fuel and building blocks for that process --
protein and fat -- and turn off the insulin faucet by cutting back on
carbs.  

You're fighting a very simple chain reaction -- carbs turn into blood
sugar, and you produce insulin in proportion to blood sugar.  One of
the main functions of insulin is to trigger your cells to grab that
sugar and store it as fat.  As long as that chemical process is
happening, you *can't* remove fat from your cells.  There are two ways
to stop that storage process so the removal process can kick in: bring
down the intake of carbs, or starve yourself.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Ann in Houston - 19 Mar 2007 18:27 GMT
> Here's the thing, though: none of us lost any weight.  This was a huge
> jump in physical activity for three straight months (we continued
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> any extended amount of time.  My sisters were avoiding eating fat, of
> course, and getting plenty of potatoes and pasta.

Aaron,
      I have to ask whether this little episode made your sisters face any
facts regarding low fat dieting.
If they were ratcheting up their exercise level and avoiding fats, and maybe
obvious sweet goodies, but still eating plenty of 'food' carbs, it had to
say something about low fat diets.  Did it raise any interesting
conversations about low fat vs LC between the three of you?
You don't say that it hurt any of you to increase exertion so drastically,
so that is good news.  Did it lead your sisters to remain more active than
they were before?
Roger Zoul - 19 Mar 2007 20:45 GMT
::: Here's the thing, though: none of us lost any weight.  This was a
::: huge jump in physical activity for three straight months (we
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
:: drastically, so that is good news.  Did it lead your sisters to
:: remain more active than they were before?

I've lost over 100 lbs twice in my life.  The first time was many years ago,
in the early/mid 90s.  That time I did low fat w/ tons of exercise. I mean,
20 miles on the stationary in the am, 20 miles in the PM, walking and weight
lifting in between.  I was a workout fiend.  I cut the fat from everything.
I ate a lot of very lean ground turkey breast.  I'd chop onions & bell
peppers, and use lot of black pepper to season.  I'd put that ground turkey
mixture over rice, potato, or angel hair pasta.  Also, I ate bread, too.

I lost a lot of weight doing that, even while being a type 2 diabetic.  The
only problem is that once I stopped the workouts, after getting hurt, the
weight creep back on as those carbs drove my appetite.  After a few years,
the weight was back and the diabetes was out of control.

So, for me at least, and for some others I suspect, that low fat will work,
especially if you can manage to do a really significant amount of exercise.
But that's the trick. What one person thinks is a lot might not be so, in
terms of weight loss.  I think that's where those who manage to exercise
without worrying about diet fall into a trap.  if you aren't that heavy,
then you simply may not be burning enough calories in the time you allot for
exercise.  Yeah, one can do more, if one has time.  But the real payoff from
exercise comes more if you're really heavy (I was 300+ lbs with big frame &
leg muscles).  Hence, all of that moving really paid off more me.  I think
many women may not have bones and leg muscles as big as mine were, and hence
they don't reap the same benefits per unit of time spent.

The obvious advantage of LC is that it suppresses appetite, so when things
are working right you just naturally eat less food.  Then, even a little
exercise helps.  And if you quit, but keep to low carb, your appetite won't
just increase seemingly without bound. Hence, most can maintain their weight
a lot better (some effort may still be needed which means that exercise is
still recommended and a very, very good thing to do).
Aaron Baugher - 20 Mar 2007 17:47 GMT
> I have to ask whether this little episode made your sisters face any
> facts regarding low fat dieting.

Not especially.  I wouldn't say they're low-fat dieting, but if
they're still hungry after a meal, they'll think a piece of cake is
better than cheesecake, because of the fat in the latter.

> If they were ratcheting up their exercise level and avoiding fats,
> and maybe obvious sweet goodies, but still eating plenty of 'food'
> carbs, it had to say something about low fat diets.  Did it raise
> any interesting conversations about low fat vs LC between the three
> of you?

Again, not so much.  For one thing, I've been maintaining my weight at
about goal+30 by doing LC badly for the past couple years, so I
haven't been setting a great example.  From their perspective, I'm
proof that it *doesn't* work, or at least doesn't work completely,
since I did lose 50+ pounds three years ago but haven't lost the rest.
Of course, I can tell them the failure has been mine, not LC's, but
all they can tell is what they see.  When I chime in with an opinion
about how there's no difference between a baked potato and table
sugar, the eyes start rolling; "there goes Aaron after his windmills
again."

It also doesn't help that my brother discovered LC, lost about 100
pounds, got a job where people were constantly bringing in candy and
ordering pizza, fell off the wagon, and gained the 100 pounds back.

There are also all the outdated health concerns people still have
about eating fat.  Even if people are forced to admit LC brings down
weight somehow, they may still be afraid to try it for fear of heart
disease or whatever.  There's a lot of FUD to overcome there.

Also, they have a strong reason not to want to believe it: they really
like carby foods.  One sister loves to bake and is very good at it, so
she turns out cakes, cookies, and pies almost every day.  You and I
know that she could turn those talents toward LC cooking, but sweets
are what she knows best and her family enjoys them, so she's in no
hurry to give that up.  My other sister insists that she loves pasta
and could never give it up, so she balks at even trying anything that
would outlaw that.

> You don't say that it hurt any of you to increase exertion so
> drastically, so that is good news.  Did it lead your sisters to
> remain more active than they were before?

They've continued to do some running when the weather is good, but I
think knee and foot problems have made it more difficult to keep up.

The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small
farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than I
do), without the running.  The other sister has no kids and a
sedentary job.  Yet this huge difference in exercise doesn't show up
in their weights; it's just that under the extra weight, one has more
muscle mass and strength.  Of course, one could just claim that the
first one is eating that many more calories, but that's not what I see
when I'm around.  It's *what* they're eating that matters.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Roger Zoul - 20 Mar 2007 19:36 GMT
:: "Ann in Houston" <afraley1@houston.rr.com> writes:
::
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: they're still hungry after a meal, they'll think a piece of cake is
:: better than cheesecake, because of the fat in the latter.

Last I checked, both have lots of fat and sugar and the general serve of
cheesecake is typically smaller than other kinds.

::: If they were ratcheting up their exercise level and avoiding fats,
::: and maybe obvious sweet goodies, but still eating plenty of 'food'
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
:: since I did lose 50+ pounds three years ago but haven't lost the
:: rest.

But you're keeping 50+ lbs off for 3 years.  Pay attention:  That's very
good. :)

Part of the equation is motivation.  If you're happy at goal+30 who is to
say there's something wrong with that?  Well, sure, many will say you ought
to be hitting chart weight, but  none of those people are perfect either. We
all have things we're good at and things we suck at.  Some people can be Mr.
or Mrs Olympia but also not be so smart.  Others get to be really smart but
fat.  Some can be good at basketball but yet be lying cheaters.  Etc.

Of course, I can tell them the failure has been mine, not
:: LC's, but all they can tell is what they see.  When I chime in with
:: an opinion about how there's no difference between a baked potato
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: pounds, got a job where people were constantly bringing in candy and
:: ordering pizza, fell off the wagon, and gained the 100 pounds back.

Yeah, that never helps.  But it does seem to suggest that it's really the
person that is special in keeping the weight off, not the approach.

:: There are also all the outdated health concerns people still have
:: about eating fat.  Even if people are forced to admit LC brings down
:: weight somehow, they may still be afraid to try it for fear of heart
:: disease or whatever.  There's a lot of FUD to overcome there.

What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.

:: Also, they have a strong reason not to want to believe it: they
:: really like carby foods.  One sister loves to bake and is very good
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
:: loves pasta and could never give it up, so she balks at even trying
:: anything that would outlaw that.

It seems to be a universal truth that people LOVE food and are IN LOVE with
certain foods! :)

::: You don't say that it hurt any of you to increase exertion so
::: drastically, so that is good news.  Did it lead your sisters to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than I
:: do), without the running.

I bet you're overestimating how many she really burns!  That would be what's
typical.

 The other sister has no kids and a
:: sedentary job.  Yet this huge difference in exercise doesn't show up
:: in their weights; it's just that under the extra weight, one has more
:: muscle mass and strength.

Perhaps, but perhaps not as much as you'd like to think.

:: Of course, one could just claim that the
:: first one is eating that many more calories, but that's not what I
:: see when I'm around.  It's *what* they're eating that matters.

Or perhaps what they're eating when you're not around! :)
Aaron Baugher - 21 Mar 2007 12:56 GMT
> Part of the equation is motivation.  If you're happy at goal+30 who
> is to say there's something wrong with that?

True, but I'm not happy at goal+30.  I don't like what I see in the
mirror; I don't like feeling like a big ball of sweat in the summer;
and I don't like setting a crappy example for people I care about who
could really stand to get on board LC.  So I've got plenty of reasons
for motivation; I just have to keep translating them into action.

> What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.

According to whom?  According to us, sure; but I haven't heard the ADA
saying that, and they're the ones most people are still listening to.

> :: The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small
> :: farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than
> :: I do), without the running.

> I bet you're overestimating how many she really burns!  That would
> be what's typical.

Well, I'm not trying to put a number on it, but she takes care of four
kids (including a 4-year old boy who's not in preschool, thank
goodness), feeds a dozen or so dairy calves a couple times a day, has
a large garden and a flock of chickens, and does various other chores.
I've watched her buck hay bales and carry buckets of feed and water
enough to make me tired just watching.  So I don't know exactly how
many calories she's burning compared to me sitting at my desk all day
except for a couple walks with the dog, but if it's not a significant
number, than all the "you need to move more to lose weight" talk is
crap.  If she's not exercising enough to lose weight, then no one
outside boot camp is.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Roger Zoul - 21 Mar 2007 14:08 GMT
:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes:
::
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
:: could really stand to get on board LC.  So I've got plenty of reasons
:: for motivation; I just have to keep translating them into action.

Well, then it does sound as if you have some work to do.....you get to
decide what you need to do.

::: What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.
::
:: According to whom?  According to us, sure; but I haven't heard the
:: ADA saying that, and they're the ones most people are still
:: listening to.

The ADA has admitted as much, but I don't think most people are listening to
the ADA.  Most people aren't listening to anyone.

::::: The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small
::::: farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
:: weight" talk is crap.  If she's not exercising enough to lose
:: weight, then no one outside boot camp is.

Well, i'm not convinced of this logic....if she's got a weight problem, then
obviously she's not "exercising enough to lose weight".
Ann in Houston - 21 Mar 2007 16:27 GMT
> ::: What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.
> ::
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The ADA has admitted as much, but I don't think most people are listening
> to the ADA.  Most people aren't listening to anyone.

I wonder if my MIL would be getting better results with her diabetes if her
doctor wasn't telling her to limit her fat intake in order to generally keep
her weight down.  I know excess weight is bad for diabetes patients, but it
makes me nuts to see her worry about fats in her foods almost as much as she
does sugar.  She does okay, but I don't think she would need any medication
if she had better diet advice.  She certainly isn't going to listen to me,
that's for sure.

> ::::: The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small
> ::::: farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Well, i'm not convinced of this logic....if she's got a weight problem,
> then obviously she's not "exercising enough to lose weight".

Since her chores probably stay about the same most of the time, it reminds
me of something I've thought of from time to time.
I wonder if our bodies get used to the same motion all the time and start to
compensate for it, keeping fat any way it can.  I have seen dancers and ice
skaters who look like they have a bit of padding over those leg muscles.  In
the case of dancers, they even carry extra weight in their torsos.
Roger Zoul - 21 Mar 2007 17:25 GMT
:::::: What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.
:::::
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
:: if her doctor wasn't telling her to limit her fat intake in order to
:: generally keep her weight down.

It would depend. If her limiting her fat means she eats more carby foods,
then it's very likely not doing her any good. If her not limiting fat mean
she ate a lot more calories, then that wouldn't be good either.
OTOH, if she adopted a LC woe, chances are her appetite would drop, she'd
have less chance of overeating, and she might come off any meds she might be
on.

::  I know excess weight is bad for
:: diabetes patients,

But this depends on how much excess weight one is talking about. It's not
true that *any* excess weight (depending on how that is defined) is bad from
a controlling diabetes POV.

but it makes me nuts to see her worry about fats
:: in her foods almost as much as she does sugar.

For a diabetic, fat is not a problem, but too much food certainly is.

 She does okay, but I
:: don't think she would need any medication if she had better diet
:: advice.  She certainly isn't going to listen to me, that's for sure.

Yep.  MDs seem to have god status.

:::::::: The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a
:::::::: small farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
:: I wonder if our bodies get used to the same motion all the time and
:: start to compensate for it, keeping fat any way it can.

Many claim that is true.  However, I don't think the effect is that great if
it exist at all. I think what's happening is that she is eating in balance
with her activity and thus is remaining at a stable weight, even if it's
overweight.  IMO, exercise mostly takes a back seat to diet in terms of
weight.  A person can be very active and still have extra bodyfat.  Since it
take a body a good about of effort to burn what can be consumed very
quickly, the biggest change by far will come from limiting food. For
example, eating 500 kcals less a day takes less time for a busy person than
doing 500 kcals of EXTRA exercise a day, to see a change on the scale over a
weeks time.

 I have seen
:: dancers and ice skaters who look like they have a bit of padding
:: over those leg muscles.  In the case of dancers, they even carry
:: extra weight in their torsos.
Aaron Baugher - 21 Mar 2007 21:03 GMT
> ::: What about fear of diabetes?  LC kicks a.s in controling that.
> ::
> :: According to whom?  According to us, sure; but I haven't heard the
> :: ADA saying that, and they're the ones most people are still
> :: listening to.

> The ADA has admitted as much, but I don't think most people are
> listening to the ADA.  Most people aren't listening to anyone.

Well, I think most people are "listening" to conventional wisdom,
which filters down slowly from sources like the ADA, through the
education and entertainment industries, and eventually into common
knowledge.  It takes a while, though; so same vague admissions today
from the ADA aren't going to make much of a dent in all the anti-fat
pro-starch preaching they've been doing for decades.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Roger Zoul - 21 Mar 2007 23:41 GMT
:: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes:
::
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
:: from the ADA aren't going to make much of a dent in all the anti-fat
:: pro-starch preaching they've been doing for decades.

The exception is that today there is a lot more "noise" then there has been
in the past, so the ADA and the low-fat, pro-starch dynasty will eventually
fall flat.  The King is Dead!
Bob in CT - 19 Mar 2007 20:35 GMT
>> I feel much more fit.  I can jog 3 miles now when I couldn't walk it
>> before without being winded.  I can lift 25lb. weights in both
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> just under 10 minutes/mile), but we were certainly proud of our
> achievement.

I think that's a good time.  In the best shape of my life, I could only  
average around 10 minutes/mile.

> Here's the thing, though: none of us lost any weight.  This was a huge
> jump in physical activity for three straight months (we continued
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> to stop that storage process so the removal process can kick in: bring
> down the intake of carbs, or starve yourself.

I think it could also be too many calories.  Although I think low carb is  
great (and I have lost weight while exercising), I also don't think you  
can eat 6,000 (for instance) calories per day and still lose weight.  So,  
there must be a reduction in calories to go along with the exercise.  I do  
note that I can get much stronger and know I've lost weight (loser pants,  
for instance), without losing much scale weight.  The original poster said  
that didn't happen for them, but I'd hazard a guess that it did.

Signature

Bob in CT

Pat - 19 Mar 2007 21:37 GMT
I do
> note that I can get much stronger and know I've lost weight (loser pants,
> for instance), without losing much scale weight.  > --
> Bob in CT

Heh heh. You're really snake bit on that "loose/lose" thing, aren't ya?

I gave away my "loser pants."

Pat in TX
Bob in CT - 19 Mar 2007 22:55 GMT
>   I do
>> note that I can get much stronger and know I've lost weight (loser  
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Pat in TX

You're right -- looser. I usually don't make the loose/lose error, but at  
times when drafting things fast, I loosen my standards, and it's easy to  
lose an O.  Nor do I tend to use colloquialisms, but they can sometimes be  
fun.  Don't cha think?

Signature

Bob in CT

Pat - 20 Mar 2007 04:06 GMT
> You're right -- looser. I usually don't make the loose/lose error, but at
> times when drafting things fast, I loosen my standards, and it's easy to
> lose an O.  Nor do I tend to use colloquialisms, but they can sometimes be
> fun.  Don't cha think?

Hmmm. I think that should be "doncha".....
god@heaven.com - 27 Mar 2007 06:10 GMT
>in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
>personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>what is the problem here?

The problem is that you are a big fat ugly slob and there is little
you can do to change it.  You will always be a big fat ugly slob.  God
intended for you to be a big fat ugly slob, so curse God.  Your only
solution will be to place a loaded shotgun to your head and pull the
trigger.  Of course, if God is as mean and nasty as he seems, you will
come back even fatter, uglier, and slobbier.  God hates fat people.
Hollywood - 27 Mar 2007 14:17 GMT
On Mar 27, 1:10 am, g...@heaven.com wrote:

> >in october I decided to get off the couch and get fit.  I got a
> >personal trainer who is fantstic and really dedicated.  we do
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> trigger.  Of course, if God is as mean and nasty as he seems, you will
> come back even fatter, uglier, and slobbier.  God hates fat people.

At the risk of feeding a troll,

Can you explain this logical hole to me?

You put forward two ideas.
1- God, and only God, makes people fat.
2- God hates fat people.

Now, I'm not a divine being, but I don't like to eat fish. So I don't
buy them and I don't cook them. Unless God has an extreme masochistic
complex, He wouldn't make stuff He hates. Why would he? I'm not a
supreme being, but I think it's pretty obvious that an omnipotent
being would work towards his pleasure, rather than it's own misery. If
He hates fat people, why make them and watch them flail around?

Sorry, but you're not making sense.
god@heaven.com - 29 Mar 2007 05:53 GMT
>On Mar 27, 1:10 am, g...@heaven.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
>Sorry, but you're not making sense.

The same reason that children build sand castles just to smash them to
pieces, and the same reason that adults spend hours and hours to build
a demolition derby car just to get the pleasure of destroying the hell
out of it.  

God makes fat people just so he has something to destroy for personal
pleasure.......  
Watching the fatsos suffer rejection throughout their entire life
makes it all worthwhile.
It's God's own circus sideshow !!!!
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.