# The ultimate easy frugality tip



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Reading the thread about saving on groceries it occurred to me that it isn't easy to compare one family's budget to another family. Tips to save money on groceries depend on a lot of different factors obviously. But one factor that I haven't seen mentioned is possibly the easiest way of all to save money. Just eat less.

I'm not joking or being flippant in any way, I'm quite serious. When you consider that over 60% of Canadian adults are either overweight or obese and around 30% of children, it isn't much of a leap to suggest that many people are simply eating too much. 

While there are some people who are overweight or obese due to a medical condition, most who are overweight or obese are that way because they are taking in more calories than they need. What someone eats and how much of it, is up to them but in terms of saving money, the less you eat, the less you spend obviously. When I compare how much my wife and I eat compared to others, I'd say we eat half as much as many do. In some cases even less than that. We have gone to dinner in someone's home many times and had to leave half the food on our plates while trying to tell our hosts that, 'we've always been small eaters.' The truth is, they're big eaters in our eyes, we're normal eaters.

If someone is consistently taking in more calories than they need, then they get fat. If that is the case, then they are eating more than they need to eat to remain healthy and eating less is not only a good thing for them to do from a health standpoint, it is also one of the simplest ways there is to save money. Given that this applies to around 60% of Canadian adults, it no doubt applies to around 60% of those in this forum as well.

So wanna save money, stop eating so much.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah, still not easy. I’ve got three teens and a preteen. They are all athletes and probably consume upwards of 5000 calories a day during the season (not the youngest, but they eat more than most too). Some play up to 6 games a week plus practices. Not one is fat.

Pasta is a good, relatively cheap, solution. Probably go through a couple pounds a day.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

No one ever needs to take in 5000 calories per day, regardless of what they are doing. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/

Here is an article on athletes and their additional requirements. https://familydoctor.org/nutrition-for-athletes/ 

I'm gonna presume you just pulled the 5000 out of your hat. The equation between calories and adding weight is simple. If you burn off as many as you take in, your weight remains constant. If you take in more than you burn off, you gain weight. 

While I don't question your comment that 'no one is fat', I find that is often but not always(giving you an out) said by people who are overweight. It seems to be some kind of defense mechanism against admitting to being overweight. Someone 10 or 15 pounds overweight can keep telling themselves, 'I'm not fat' for a long time, they're still overweight though aren't they. It's only when they get to obese that they can no longer kid themselves.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

yes, it was a bit of hyperbole, but they are bottomless pits when it comes to food and they are skinny as a rail, solid muscle, low body fat. They play three major sports and are often on provincial level teams. This week one is trying out for team canada...they don’t tend to take people who are out of shape when you hit the elite levels.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Reminded me of


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> No one ever needs to take in 5000 calories per day, regardless of what they are doing. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
> 
> Here is an article on athletes and their additional requirements. https://familydoctor.org/nutrition-for-athletes/
> 
> ...


The 'how much you burn' thing is actually quite complicated. Your body has a lot of leeway to up-regulate or down-regulate metabolism.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> No one ever needs to take in 5000 calories per day, regardless of what they are doing. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
> 
> Here is an article on athletes and their additional requirements. https://familydoctor.org/nutrition-for-athletes/
> 
> I'm gonna presume you just pulled the 5000 out of your hat. The equation between calories and adding weight is simple. If you burn off as many as you take in, your weight remains constant. If you take in more than you burn off, you gain weight.


Actually top athletes can consume 5000+ calories on heavy training days but that is not really an issue for the majority of people.

If you look at the chart and activity description from your health.gov link, active means walking "only" 3 miles a day ... not really all that much exercise IMO.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

There are sites that say teenage "athletes" may need as much as 5,000 calories. https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/eatnrun.html. So JustaGuy's teens may be in that ball park. But that's above the range for the average active teen.

There are certain medical conditions that can lead to needing more, but that's another story.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

In some of their games they can run between 5 and 10k. Not to mention the physical contact. City playoffs tonight. Team Canada (adult level, not teen) tryouts this weekend. Two different sports.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> In some of their games they can run between 5 and 10k. Not to mention the physical contact. City playoffs tonight. Team Canada (adult level, not teen) tryouts this weekend. Two different sports.


 If your running more then 15 - 20 miles a week your doing it for other reasons then good health. Dr Kenneth Cooper


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes they are doing it for fun. They like playing sports and they are very good at it. They are also Kids. You won’t see me out there other than in the stands.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

cainvest said:


> If you look at the chart and activity description from your health.gov link, active means walking "only" 3 miles a day ... not really all that much exercise IMO.


3 miles is nothing. A round of golf is a 9 or 10k (6 miles) which isn't out of reach for most people, even those who are not really in shape.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

What does any of this talk about athletics have to do with a tip to save money by eating less?

If 60% of people are overweight, that means they are eating too much. Am I to assume this sidetracking is because those doing so do not want to talk about being overweight and eating less to save some money? Is it the 60%ers burying their heads in the sand and avoiding their being overweight? I'm also noticing the somewhat conspicuous absence of some regular posters. Are they 60%ers do you think?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My wife eats more than I do and I am the one who gains weight.

I think it is mainly caused by genetics. Our bodies evolved to store fat so some people's genes are more evolved than others.

Human teeth and digestive systems certainly haven't evolved the same as plant eating animals like cows.

It is all genetics and evolution.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> My wife eats more than I do and I am the one who gains weight.
> 
> I think it is mainly caused by genetics. Our bodies evolved to store fat so some people's genes are more evolved than others.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is you eat too much and are overweight but it's not your fault, it's your 'genetics' that are to blame. Got it.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Longtimeago said:


> So what you're saying is you eat too much and are overweight but it's not your fault, it's your 'genetics' that are to blame. Got it.


If you lean left, nothing is ever your fault. Even being fat. I'm only surprised that sags blamed genetics instead of Trump.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think a bigger issue than eating too much is cooking too much. Our society throws out a ton of food we never consume. I cant relate to being overweight, my mass hasn’t changed since i was in university.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

The people who trek on overland expeditions in the Arctic or Antarctic do report eating 8000 calories per day, the temperature being very cold and dragging their sled all day. In fact, they report having trouble ingesting enough calories eating normal food that they eat sticks of butter straight-up.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> What does any of this talk about athletics have to do with a tip to save money by eating less?


Two reasons,
1> One needs to understand that calorie intake changes with exercise, you may need to adjust depending on your routine.
2> Correct your previous incorrect statement that nobody would need to consume 5000 calories a day. 



Longtimeago said:


> If 60% of people are overweight, that means they are eating too much. Am I to assume this sidetracking is because those doing so do not want to talk about being overweight and eating less to save some money? Is it the 60%ers burying their heads in the sand and avoiding their being overweight? I'm also noticing the somewhat conspicuous absence of some regular posters. Are they 60%ers do you think?


You're right that if overweight people would just consume what their body needs to be in their normal BMI (body mass index) zone they'd probably save a fair bit of money.

I will add that for those that like to over eat on occasion, exercise is a great way to allow one to do that and gives you other benefits as well. On any of my heavy training days I remove all my calorie limits, basically eat whatever I want afterwards though I rarely do this and my intake is only slightly increased.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

I agree with sags about genetics.

Over the years, I have observed that some people are able to eat what they like in any amount and not gain weight, even though living a sedentary lifestyle. Their metabolism permits that. I have seen others for whom just about every calorie consumed gets stored as fat. Most people seem to be more in between, including me.

Until my mid-20s, I was in the camp that could pay no attention whatsoever to how much I ate, what I ate, how much I exercised. I remained slim. Then, when I finished law school and started working in a downtown Vancouver office, things changed. I would head off to the office early, sit at my desk until about noon, go out with clients and/or other lawyers in the firm to a nice restaurant and have a full meal. Then back to the office, at my desk until about 6 or so, later if preparing for a trial, then home to a dinner waiting. After that, sit around for awhile before bed. It took a year or so, but my high school weight of 150 lb. was replaced with more like 170. The gain was incremental and slow, so it was easy to brush off as of no moment. I failed/refused to recognize it until a routine visit to our family physician, who said I should lose weight. I was a bit startled. Somewhat defensively I asked "Well how much then?" He replied "Well, I know it's hard to lose weight, 10 pounds would be good, but start by trying to lose 5."

That to me was throwing down the gauntlet. I started daily exercise and watching my calories. When I saw him some months later I was down to 130. I showed him! His turn to be startled. He asked how I did it. I told him of my regime, which included no more alcohol (I usually liked 1-2 glasses of red wine most evenings). Of the latter he remarked "I don't like to hear that. I am one of those doctors who believes that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial. I would rather you lose your calories somewhere else." He also suggested that I return to a weight closer to 150. I implemented both suggestions. That was quite a few years ago and I have stayed around 150 ever since. A few times I have drifted up to 160, but I can lose 10 pounds easily in a couple of weeks. I know some who struggle to do so and I do not believe it's a case of my superior willpower. It's more immutable aspects of genetics/metabolism. For some years now, living an off-grid rural lifestyle, I am always physically active and gaining weight is never of concern. Maybe the opposite.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

cainvest said:


> You're right that if overweight people would just consume what their body needs to be in their normal BMI (body mass index) zone they'd probably save a fair bit of money.


Actually after thinking about this for a bit there could be not much "money saving" involved.
If I exceded my calorie intake by a donut a day (~ 40 cents) I would become overweight over time with very little money spent.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> What does any of this talk about athletics have to do with a tip to save money by eating less?


Due to this


> Reading the thread about saving on groceries it occurred to me that it isn't easy to compare one family's budget to another family. Tips to save money on groceries depend on a lot of different factors obviously.


Because what and how much someone eats has just as many factors if not more than saving money on groceries. You have made many assumptions that are already being proven as invalid. I would bet it would be much more complicated than saying eat 20% less, save 20% on your grocery bill and lose weight too. Others have indicated, there could be genetics, athletes, growing children, dietary considerations, etc. 

I would bet I could find savings for most people on this board in there grocery bill easier than I could just getting people to eat less. I was able to cut my grocery bill at one point by over 50%. I could not have cut out the food by having the family eat 50% less food without having my children or family ill or malnourished. 



Longtimeago said:


> I'm not joking or being flippant in any way, I'm quite serious. When you consider that over 60% of Canadian adults are either overweight or obese and around 30% of children, it isn't much of a leap to suggest that many people are simply eating too much.
> 
> While there are some people who are overweight or obese due to a medical condition, most who are overweight or obese are that way because they are taking in more calories than they need. What someone eats and how much of it, is up to them but in terms of saving money, the less you eat, the less you spend obviously. When I compare how much my wife and I eat compared to others, I'd say we eat half as much as many do. In some cases even less than that. We have gone to dinner in someone's home many times and had to leave half the food on our plates while trying to tell our hosts that, 'we've always been small eaters.' The truth is, they're big eaters in our eyes, we're normal eaters.
> 
> ...


Quantity is just one small factor in weight gain and grocery costs. One would have to look at ones diet before making a general statement eat half as much. Some one over weight may not be eating too much food but rather poor quality high calorie foods. High calorie processed foods are often cheaper per calorie than whole healthy foods. I have tracked grocery prices for years, and found that often the processed, high calorie version of food often cheaper than the equivalent whole food. If a family eats generally healthier options (such as mine), their grocery bill will often be more and their waistlines most likely less. 

Technically, no can argue, eat less food spend less money, but that also doesn't account for the many different variations of what people are eating.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’m not sure why one would mess with a food budget to begin with. Even when I was broke, I made sure I bought quality food. It’s not an area where I’d want to compromise. I may buy stuff on sale, but the quality and quantity needed I don’t mess with.


----------



## Jericho (Dec 23, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> No one ever needs to take in 5000 calories per day, regardless of what they are doing. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
> 
> Here is an article on athletes and their additional requirements. https://familydoctor.org/nutrition-for-athletes/
> 
> ...


I know lots of guys I train with who eat 5000 + calories. Some rare cases, like those training for Olympia etc eat a ton too... It's all relative to how you're training. The average man doesn't REQUIRE 5000 calories, but there are tons of fit folk who do.


----------



## Jericho (Dec 23, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I’m not sure why one would mess with a food budget to begin with. Even when I was broke, I made sure I bought quality food. It’s not an area where I’d want to compromise. I may buy stuff on sale, but the quality and quantity needed I don’t mess with.


Being a single dad with 2 kids, I've really been able to manage our food budget well. My kids are younger so they don't eat quite as much, however I buy meats in bulk, cut and freeze them... A sack of rice is dirt cheap. I shop for huge sales and stock up in bulk on meats and fish. The only thing I routinely go through regularly would be milk and veggies/fruits. I can get by on $100 a week or less, especially if I do a HUGE pot of stew or chilli and freeze it. Bulk meals are the way to go if wanting to be frugal.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kelaa said:


> The people who trek on overland expeditions in the Arctic or Antarctic do report eating 8000 calories per day, the temperature being very cold and dragging their sled all day. In fact, they report having trouble ingesting enough calories eating normal food that they eat sticks of butter straight-up.


Yes there may be exceptional circumstances under which people need very large numbers of calories. But 60% of Canadians are not all in that group are they? It's easy to take something literally and dispute that one item but it does not change the FACT that 60% of Canadians are overweight.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> I agree with sags about genetics.
> 
> Over the years, I have observed that some people are able to eat what they like in any amount and not gain weight, even though living a sedentary lifestyle. Their metabolism permits that. I have seen others for whom just about every calorie consumed gets stored as fat. Most people seem to be more in between, including me.
> 
> ...


Yes genetics play a part and as I said to begin with, SOME people do have medical reasons including genetics which make it harder for them to control their weight. So what? Again as I have just noted in my response to kelaa, that does not account for 60% of Canadians being overweight. 

Let's try not to lose sight of the forest by concentrating on the individual trees. For someone to blame 'genetics' for their being overweight is an easy out to take. The Mayo Clinic sums it up quite simply:

*"Although there are genetic, behavioral and hormonal influences on body weight, obesity occurs when you take in more calories than you burn through exercise and normal daily activities. Your body stores these excess calories as fat.

Obesity can sometimes be traced to a medical cause, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, Cushing's syndrome, and other diseases and conditions. However, these disorders are rare and, in general, the principal causes of obesity are:

Inactivity. If you're not very active, you don't burn as many calories. With a sedentary lifestyle, you can easily take in more calories every day than you use through exercise and normal daily activities.
Unhealthy diet and eating habits. Weight gain is inevitable if you regularly eat more calories than you burn. And most Americans' diets are too high in calories and are full of fast food and high-calorie beverages."*

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/obesity/symptoms-causes/syc-20375742

The key words being,* "you take in more calories than you burn".* Even someone who is obese due to a medical condition, CAN affect that by eating less. And going back to the point of the thread on FRUGALITY, eating less means buying less which would provide an easy way of saving money. 

No one can argue the facts. The facts are:

1. 60% plus of Canadians are overweight. 
2. Taking in more calories than you burn causes weight gain. 
3. Eating less means buying less.
4. Buying less equals saving money.
5. At least 60% of Canadians could be more frugal in their food spending without harming and in fact be helping their health.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Actually after thinking about this for a bit there could be not much "money saving" involved.
> If I exceded my calorie intake by a donut a day (~ 40 cents) I would become overweight over time with very little money spent.


I would suggest to you cainvest that 60% plus of Canadians are not just exceeding their calorie intake by a donut a day. Care to try and argue that?

Take a look around you next time you are out on the street, do you think all those overweight people you see couldn't afford to eat less and probably wouldn't save much money if they did so? Do you think all those guys with a beer gut got if from eating one donut a day? Or the women wearing modified tents are just a donut a day overeaters? 

Don't try to argue the money savings based on a ridiculous premise as to how someone got to be overweight.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> No one can argue the facts. The facts are:
> 
> 1. 60% plus of Canadians are overweight.
> 2. Taking in more calories than you burn causes weight gain.
> ...


You are right again. no can argue your facts. Your facts are as helpful and factual as someone asking for tips to be more financially independent, and one responding
1. Spend less money
2. Make more money

Factually correct, not very helpful.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

*How to Dither Successfully*

.

Dithering in CMF Forum:


make up a useless topic

work yourself up into a fine hissy snit over the topic

dither arguments about the topic endlessly on a public chat board



in other news, here's someone who's *not* dithering. M3 has just come close to a guinness record by completing 2 ocean-to-ocean-to-ocean back-to-backs on a motorcycle in less than a year. Atlantic-Pacific-Arctic-Pacific-Atlantic.

he's back on the new england coast now, after a bravura sweep which took him from prudhoe bay through colorado, kansas, kentucky & virginia. then a "virage" back towards the north to bypass new york city & boston. 

it's been a rugged 6 weeks. Biking hell-for-leather every day, with as many off-the-road adventures up beckoning dirt tracks & around soaring mountain loops as time allowed him. M3 is never one to complain, but he says that both he & the bike are pretty much beaten up for the moment.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Good to see a totally inappropriate and off topic post in this thread. Makes it so much better.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

thank you for noticing, it is indeed such an appropriate post in this thread

after all, the blowhards here are droning on & on about overweight, inactivity, inertia, eat less, save money, lose weight et patati et patata

who better than a prime endurance athlete on a championship motorbike ride to illustrate the Right Road to good health & prosperity


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

How to live longer:

Die less.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrewf said:


> How to live longer:
> 
> Die less.



ultimate zen wisdom

cmf forum can now close itself down permanently
every question financial-social-political-aesthetic-moral-spiritual has now been answered
hallelulijah


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I’d call a pedal biker an athlete. People who sit on a motorcycle for long periods as as athletic as professional poker players.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Just a Guy said:


> I’d call a pedal biker an athlete. People who sit on a motorcycle for long periods as as athletic as professional poker players.



you obviously know nothing about off-the-road motorbiking. It's physically much harder than jockeying a racehorse.

the uneven terrain is gravel or rocks or sometimes river water. The front wheel has to turn & twist & vibrate constantly since otherwise the bike would lose balance. The rider has to be controlling this bucking every minute. It's gruelling.

but then, i suppose you are one who would say that Grand Prix race car drivers are just poker players sitting in toys.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Certainly not on par with a pedal biker. I know seriously out of shape people who do endurance biking. You’ve obviously never played a poker tournament either. It takes a lot of energy and endurance, but they are certainly not an elite athlete.

Heck, I’ve done endurance driving in my younger days where I’d go between provinces and back with only a stop to look at a property. Doesn’t make me an elite athlete.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I would suggest to you cainvest that 60% plus of Canadians are not just exceeding their calorie intake by a donut a day. Care to try and argue that?
> 
> Take a look around you next time you are out on the street, do you think all those overweight people you see couldn't afford to eat less and probably wouldn't save much money if they did so? Do you think all those guys with a beer gut got if from eating one donut a day? Or the women wearing modified tents are just a donut a day overeaters?
> 
> Don't try to argue the money savings based on a ridiculous premise as to how someone got to be overweight.


Just making the point that one can be overweight without making a significant impact on cost.
lol, that was the point of your thread wasn't it or did you forget?

Even if one were to eat three "extra calorie" donuts a day (about $1.20) is that going to make a siginificant impact on their finances ... I'll save you the time to reply ... NO for vast majority of people.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> Certainly not on par with a pedal biker. I know seriously out of shape people who do endurance biking. You’ve obviously never played a poker tournament either. It takes a lot of energy and endurance, but they are certainly not an elite athlete.
> 
> Heck, I’ve done endurance driving in my younger days where I’d go between provinces and back with only a stop to look at a property. Doesn’t make me an elite athlete.


As with many exercises, the level of calorie burn depends on the individual's output, fitness level and muscle mass. I can ride a bicycle for an hour and burn between 50 to about 400 calories but I can also do the same riding my motorcycle off road. Actually I find off road riding (enduro) is much more demanding body wise than riding a pedal bike ... I do both BTW.

Side note, if you're not using your big muscles you're not burning as many calories.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I imagine a coast to coast drive is mostly highway driving, very little off-roading. As I said, if he did it on a bicycle, I’d be impressed. I respect the endurance aspect, but still don’t put them in the same category as real athletes.

Remember long haul truckers do this for a living, not exactly athletic materials in most cases.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> Just making the point that one can be overweight without making a significant impact on cost.
> lol, that was the point of your thread wasn't it or did you forget?
> 
> Even if one were to eat three "extra calorie" donuts a day (about $1.20) is that going to make a siginificant impact on their finances ... I'll save you the time to reply ... NO for vast majority of people.


What's with the donuts? Talk about the average overweight person, not some hypothetical donut eater cainvest. I'm sure you know as well as I do that most overweight people eat more than donuts and more than they need to. That's why they are overweight. That's also why they could easily save money be eating less and with no negative affects on anything other than their 'food greed.'

Perhaps although I doubt it, you actually don't realize just how much more food people eat than they need to and just how much money they spend on doing it. Maybe this will help you put it in perspective.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/the-financial-cost-of-obesity/#413b45ebc274


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> What's with the donuts? Talk about the average overweight person, not some hypothetical donut eater cainvest. I'm sure you know as well as I do that most overweight people eat more than donuts and more than they need to. That's why they are overweight. That's also why they could easily save money be eating less and with no negative affects on anything other than their 'food greed.'
> 
> Perhaps although I doubt it, you actually don't realize just how much more food people eat than they need to and just how much money they spend on doing it. Maybe this will help you put it in perspective.
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/the-financial-cost-of-obesity/#413b45ebc274


That link pretty much agrees with my overweight estimate, costs are pretty low. You really don't have to eat that much extra to become overweight, whether it be donuts, chocolate bars, etc ... small amounts of junk food don't add up to much additional costs annually.

Now on the obesity side, yup, a much higher cost for food obviously. From a pure cost perspective it really matters what you are overeating. For example, high priced steak, or imported beer (higher costs) vs sugar loaded junk food (much cheaper). Of course your diet choices, even in the normal BMI index range, can significantly change ones annual food bill as well.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I went to the doctor and said ........doc I don't feel good.

He said it is because you are overweight.

I said I wanted a second opinion and he said okay, you are ugly too.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

If you look at beach and pool scenes from the 40's, 50's, and 60's, you seldom see fat people.

There is definitely something going on.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Zipper said:


> If you look at beach and pool scenes from the 40's, 50's, and 60's, you seldom see fat people.
> 
> There is definitely something going on.


It would be interesting to have people provide their BMI number Zipper. Mine is 22.4. It's easy to calculate here: https://www.smartbmicalculator.com

Perhaps if those posting in this thread would care to tell us their own BMI number, it would give some perspective as to their personal bias in the discussion. But I doubt many will be willing to do so if it is higher than 25. Maybe putting the numbers in to do the calculation though will make some admit to themselves that they are in fact overweight.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

5'9" 158 lbs. BMI 23. Haven't really varied much my whole adult life. Age 76.

Mrs. Zipper 5'4" 130 lbs. BMI 22. Age 71.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> It would be interesting to have people provide their BMI number Zipper. Mine is 22.4. It's easy to calculate here: https://www.smartbmicalculator.com
> 
> Perhaps if those posting in this thread would care to tell us their own BMI number, it would give some perspective as to their personal bias in the discussion. But I doubt many will be willing to do so if it is higher than 25. Maybe putting the numbers in to do the calculation though will make some admit to themselves that they are in fact overweight.


BMI was never meant to compare individuals or to be used for individual purposes. It was meant to be taken to an aggregate to compare differences between populations or differences in the same populations over time.
Individual BMI measurements are useless as a rule.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Don't go to a store, showroom, or shopping centre simply to 'look around'. Go when you have a specific item(s) that you wish to buy. 

Why shop for something you don't need simply to pass the time or keep up with the Jones. Ditto for buying something you do not need because someone says it is 50 or 70 percent off retail.

It is easy for me...my dislike of shopping is only eclipsed by my dislike of shopping malls.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Perhaps if those posting in this thread would care to tell us their own BMI number, it would give some perspective as to their personal bias in the discussion.



what discussion? this is a joke thread

longtimeago could you please look outtadawinda. Do you see that elongating trouser leg that's stretching all the way across the room, up da wall & over da windasill? then there's a sock but the foot itself is already outtasight outtadawinda _mercy upon us_ something is pulling that leg

.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> It would be interesting to have people provide their BMI number Zipper. Mine is 22.4. It's easy to calculate here: https://www.smartbmicalculator.com
> 
> Perhaps if those posting in this thread would care to tell us their own BMI number, it would give some perspective as to their personal bias in the discussion. But I doubt many will be willing to do so if it is higher than 25. Maybe putting the numbers in to do the calculation though will make some admit to themselves that they are in fact overweight.


I'll play. BMI of my family is:
15.9 
17.8
22
28

So how much can I cut my grocery bill by? Please list your assumptions and bias. I look forward to hearing to the details on the 'ultimate easy frugal tip'.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Plugging Along said:


> So how much can I cut my grocery bill by? Please list your assumptions and bias. I look forward to hearing to the details on the 'ultimate easy frugal tip'.


lol, ya ... I'd like to see the details of these easy frugal savings as well.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I hear amputation can be used to lower BMI. Dwayne Johnson ('the rock') has a BMI over 30, making him 'obese'. Guess he better lay off the cupcakes.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I hear amputation can be used to lower BMI. Dwayne Johnson ('the rock') has a BMI over 30, making him 'obese'. Guess he better lay off the cupcakes.


That could be the next thread. ‘Ultimate easy answer to lose weight’. Remove unnecessary body parts.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> lol, ya ... I'd like to see the details of these easy frugal savings as well.


 ... me too.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Plugging Along said:


> That could be the next thread. ‘Ultimate easy answer to lose weight’. Remove unnecessary body parts.


 ...LOLOLOLOLOL ....


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I still have my tonsils, appendix and gallbladder. What would my normalized body mass be?

Should I skip the measurement when I am constipated? I suspect some posters suffer from the latter!


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Interesting how some respond to being challenged. I feel like I just stepped into a room of kids throwing insults because I asked if they were overweight. Guess I know the answer to that question. LOL


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Interesting how some respond to being challenged. I feel like I just stepped into a room of kids throwing insults because I asked if they were overweight. Guess I know the answer to that question. LOL


It’s is interesting indeed when others answer and it’s is not what they expected, they deflect. I never got my answer directly in response. Guess I know not to answer because there was not logic to the logic in the first place.



Longtimeago said:


> Am I to assume this sidetracking is because those doing so do not want to talk about being overweight and eating less to save some money? Is it the 60%ers burying their heads in the sand and avoiding their being overweight? I'm also noticing the somewhat conspicuous absence of some regular posters. Are they 60%ers do you think?


Am I to assume this sidetracking is because those doing so do not want to talk about being overweight and eating less to save some money? Is it the OP is burying his head in the sand and avoiding that his assertion is ridiculous and cannot be supported with any logic. I'm also noticing the somewhat conspicuous absence of response by the posters. Are they embarrassed by their lack of crucial thinking g riddle by logical fallacies and assumptions? do you think?




Plugging Along said:


> I'll play. BMI of my family is:
> 15.9
> 17.8
> 22
> ...


In case you missed it, waiting for a well thought response on how my family can save money just by eating less. If I get a helpful/useful response, I will formal declare your opinion is worth anything.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No, the point is that saying people should save money by eating less because they are fat anyway is incredibly trite and condescending.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Plugger,with a BMI of 28 you are definitely fat and pushing obese.

Eat less and you will save money and improve your health.

The only normal one is 22.

The other 2 are underweight especially the 15.9.

So you need to lay off the desserts and Burger King Quad Stackers.

Leave that for the skinny ones.

You need to stay active but the other ones not so much.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Zipper said:


> The other 2 are underweight especially the 15.9.


You do know kids (under 18) have a different normal BMI range than adults right?
Since he said family I'm assuming they are kids ... might be wrong though.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Plugging Along said:


> In case you missed it, waiting for a well thought response on how my family can save money just by eating less.


I to would like to read this response and the estimated money savings. 

Maybe LTA's "The ultimate easy frugality tip" is only applicable to non-muscular people with a BMI over 40?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

andrewf said:


> No, the point is that saying people should save money by eating less because they are fat anyway is incredibly trite and condescending.


Sort of like calling people liars because you’re unable to duplicate their success. Not that you’d even try, which is probably the real problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Zipper said:


> Plugger,with a BMI of 28 you are definitely fat and pushing obese.
> 
> Eat less and you will save money and improve your health.
> 
> ...


Dr Zipper, any advice for Dwayne Johnson, who exceed's plugging's 28?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Sort of like calling people liars because you’re unable to duplicate their success. Not that you’d even try, which is probably the real problem.


Somebody's mad!


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Dr Zipper, any advice for Dwayne Johnson, who exceed's plugging's 28?


What's yours?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Somebody's mad!


Somebody is too conceited to realize I was pointing out hypocrisy.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Zipper said:


> What's yours?


I'll make it even simpler for you. 

What's your waist size?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

cainvest said:


> I to would like to read this response and the estimated money savings.
> 
> Maybe LTA's "The ultimate easy frugality tip" is only applicable to non-muscular people with a BMI over 40?


It is not as simple as listing 4 BMI numbers and then asking for 'estimated money savings', but I think Pluggingalong already knew that before asking the question. The basic principle is simple, if you are in the overweight or obese class the most likely cause is overeating. Providing a list of 4 people for whom we do not know age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker, but with BMIs under 25 would indicate no savings by eating less would be provided by those 3 and quite likely that 2 need to eat more.

If we know the age, sex, etc. of the person with a BMI of 28 which would appear to be too high, then you could expect that if that person ate less there would be money saved without harm to health and in fact would be a benefit to health. How much would be saved depends entirely on what is eaten/not eaten now and after changing the eating norms.

But I would be happy to try and estimate some more specific savings for you as an individual cainvest if you would provide your BMI along with your age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker information and a general idea of your typical eating habits, food types, current food spending, etc. that you practice at present. 

I don't know why people have so much opposition to this simple fact. If 60% plus of Canadians are overweight or obese, it doesn't take a genius to know that they could eat less and save money doing so. It seems to me that the only hard part about that idea is the question of just how easy it would be for them to discipline themselves to do so. First though, they have to admit they are overweight or obese and the reluctance here for individuals to share with us their individaul BMI number seems to speak volumes.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> It is not as simple as listing 4 BMI numbers and then asking for 'estimated money savings', but I think Pluggingalong already knew that before asking the question. The basic principle is simple, if you are in the overweight or obese class the most likely cause is overeating. Providing a list of 4 people for whom we do not know age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker, but with BMIs under 25 would indicate no savings by eating less would be provided by those 3 and quite likely that 2 need to eat more.
> If we know the age, sex, etc. of the person with a BMI of 28 which would appear to be too high, then you could expect that if that person ate less there would be money saved without harm to health and in fact would be a benefit to health. How much would be saved depends entirely on what is eaten/not eaten now and after changing the eating norms.
> But I would be happy to try and estimate some more specific savings for you as an individual cainvest if you would provide your BMI along with your age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker information and a general idea of your typical eating habits, food types, current food spending, etc. that you practice at present.


You started the statement ‘Ultimate easy frugal tip’ … , it isn't much of a leap to suggest that many people are simply eating too much. 
Pretty much every here including myself said it’s not as simple as you state. I said that a few pages ago, along with everyone else knew since the beginning of the ridiculous thread. 

You then ask for the BMI… (which I gave) and now you want age, sex, activity, smoker/non-smoker, eating habits, food types, current food spend, etc before you can come up with recommendations. 



> If we know the age, sex, etc. of the person with a BMI of 28 which would appear to be too high, then you could expect that if that person ate less there would be money saved without harm to health and in fact would be a benefit to health. How much would be saved depends entirely on what is eaten/not eaten now and after changing the eating norms.


Even here, it comes does to how much saved is based on eaten norms aka grocery, NOT weight. I could apply this to EVERY persons grocery budget NOT Based on weight. You forgot to ask for credit card, bank information, blood type, medical record. 
So no thanks on your offer to help with reducing groceries based on all the above factors. I am pretty you sure you were just a former salesperson without any medical history. I would guess that there are very few grocery savings hacks that you would be able to provide myself even with my families medical history. 



> I don't know why people have so much opposition to this simple fact. If 60% plus of Canadians are overweight or obese, it doesn't take a genius to know that they could eat less and save money doing so. It seems to me that the only hard part about that idea is the question of just how easy it would be for them to discipline themselves to do so. First though, they have to admit they are overweight or obese and the reluctance here for individuals to share with us their individaul BMI number seems to speak volumes.


Why keep asking for individual BMI? You started this very post that BMI alone cannot give you enough information to make any thoughtful or useful comments. You are only doing to deflect. I gave you mine, and you want more information. I know why you keep making circular references and logic fallacies and can see them. 



Longtimeago said:


> Reading the thread about saving on groceries it occurred to me that it isn't easy to compare one family's budget to another family. Tips to save money on groceries depend on a lot of different factors obviously. But one factor that I haven't seen mentioned is possibly the easiest way of all to save money. Just eat less.
> So wanna save money, stop eating so much.


So wrap this thread, you have not been to provide any ‘easy’ frugal tip based weight other than eat less, because any other savings tips would require a crap load of information more that the family’s budget. Now you need medical and personal history. That’s was easy – (NO).


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> It is not as simple as listing 4 BMI numbers and then asking for 'estimated money savings', but I think Pluggingalong already knew that before asking the question. The basic principle is simple, if you are in the overweight or obese class the most likely cause is overeating. Providing a list of 4 people for whom we do not know age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker, but with BMIs under 25 would indicate no savings by eating less would be provided by those 3 and quite likely that 2 need to eat more.
> 
> If we know the age, sex, etc. of the person with a BMI of 28 which would appear to be too high, then you could expect that if that person ate less there would be money saved without harm to health and in fact would be a benefit to health. How much would be saved depends entirely on what is eaten/not eaten now and after changing the eating norms.


Since I've already estimated that there are little cost savings to someone who is a bit overweight as stated by their BMI (also backed up by the link YOU provided) I just don't see any significant cost savings. 

Why don't you provide us with an example of a person with a BMI of 28 filling in all the questions yourself (worse case senario?) and what the food cost savings would be? 



Longtimeago said:


> But I would be happy to try and estimate some more specific savings for you as an individual cainvest if you would provide your BMI along with your age, sex, active/sedentary, smoker/non-smoker information and a general idea of your typical eating habits, food types, current food spending, etc. that you practice at present.


Sorry, but my own BMI is in the normal range so I don't qualify for your cost savings insight.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I said before it is all about the genes.

Some people are just too short for their weight.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

OP, I think what you're pinpointing and debating here, is an effect and not the true root cause. The reasons for eating larger portions or same quantity of food, but nonetheless with the final effect of getting obese, are (IMHO) the following:
- The quality of the food is bad throughout all the North-America. Lots of additives and health-damaging chemicals purposely added to the food. To increase the food's shelf life and the profits of the unscrupulous, unethical and criminal agro-industrial complex.
- Damn sugars added everywhere: High-fructose corn syrup or real sugar. Heck, sometimes they even add sugar to ... salt.
- Highly-toxic pesticides and genetically modified "food" - again to fatten the profits of this psichotic big food companies. Heil Monsanto Roundup!
- In regards to "fresh" produce: Picked green/unripened and artificially ripened while in transit to grocery stores, or in the storage areas. Using all sorts of other chemicals and gaseous substances.
- Food in general (even naturally grown, staple products like cereal, vegetables, fruits) is diluted in quality and nutrients that are essential to the human body. Reason: overprovisioned, aggressive crops which suck up the useful stuff from the soils too fast. Large-scale, industrial-grade, mass production in its most negative sense.
- Stupid obsession with calories. Human body being compared to just some sealed recipient which creates pressure when ingesting food, and having to find some stupid means to eliminate such "pressure" by running or exercising. Have you ever heard of the Glycemic Index or read any of Michel Montignac books?

The bottom line is this: Agro-industrial complex does not have our interest at heart, and for the almighty dollar they are willing to sell their mothers and all the upcoming generations. We have to run and "exercise" to compensate for this psychotic, sociopatic greedy gang of companies. I never had to exercise when I was living back in Europe. I also swear to you - I've been staying way from sugar with a passion - for the last 15 years since I've been living in North America. I was fit while I was in QC but after moving to United States of Toronto and to the real U.S. after that, I am out of control. Followed glycemic index-based diets and my wife always strives to cook healthy food at home. Never drank stupid chemical cocktails named "non-alcoholic beverages" etc. I'm telling you: they put stuff in milk and even the most basic staples are compromised. To heck with this North American "society" - it is compromised by greed.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

smihaila said:


> OP, I think what you're pinpointing and debating here, is an effect and not the true root cause. The reasons for eating larger portions or same quantity of food, but nonetheless with the final effect of getting obese, are (IMHO) the following:
> - The quality of the food is bad throughout all the North-America. Lots of additives and health-damaging chemicals purposely added to the food. To increase the food's shelf life and the profits of the unscrupulous, unethical and criminal agro-industrial complex.
> - Damn sugars added everywhere: High-fructose corn syrup or real sugar. Heck, sometimes they even add sugar to ... salt.
> - Highly-toxic pesticides and genetically modified "food" - again to fatten the profits of this psichotic big food companies. Heil Monsanto Roundup!
> ...


That may be what you want to expound on smihaila but it's irrelevant to the topic of the thread which is about saving money by eating less. The only reason for bringing up overweight and obesity is to show that if 60% of Canadians fall into those 2 categories then it does indicate that many people could benefit financially by eating less, without any detrimental affect to their health and indeed with a benefit to their health as well as saving money.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

"eating less" == relative, not quantifiable. And as I was mentioning earlier, the food feels diluted in nutrients here.
Now, if it's those "buy in bulk" deals (i.e. Costco) that you're also alluding to, I couldn't agree with you more. There is this trend of buying more for less, that can steer people into eating more.
Another aspect to think about: This "open space" concept with Canadian and US houses/apartments: It may feel a bit paranoid in telling it so, but there must be a reason why that fridge is made very accessible from the living area. To entice you to visit it more, hehe. Never a problem in Europe, where a kitchen is a kitchen, enclosed like a self-standing room.

And I don't think my post was off-topic. Again, you are getting into the effects, and not the root cause. I was trying to explain the reason for overweight and obesity. There are folks (like me) who try to do their best at keeping fit and eating less toxic food, never eating out, cooking at home etc. And NORMALLY-sized food portions. But still having a challenge with being overweight, simply because the food here is ... bad. Yes, bad.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

andrewf said:


> No, the point is that saying people should save money by eating less because they are fat anyway is incredibly trite and condescending.


+1


----------

