KFC noob advice
- Thread starter bakes0310
- Start date
[FnG]magnolia;25046756 said:
You do not have the right to claim anyone's posts are tired, and do you even know what ad-hom means?
I'm in to weight lifting, and I understand that packing mass on increases the requirement to eat food, I'm surprised when others don't realise this.
The more you lift, and the more intensely you lift, the hungrier you get and the more you eat.
Sure, I could stand to lose some body fat from being sedentary, but that's not the essence of what I was disputing. Most people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to food, hence why so many people think that the fat you eat, goes straight to the fat cells in the body (ie, dietary fat equals body fat).
I think people are too busy misrepresenting things that other people have said, so that they can argue against that to realise such things.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You are confusing recommended daily amounts of various foodstuffs with the sheer volume of what certain people can eat.
Outside body builders or people with growth hormone issues, no one should be 16 stone anyway.
Again your weight isn't the issue but your body type. There is a difference in what certain people can eat healthily but it isn't as vast as going from what KFC consider a 'meal' for one and what they consider a meal for one and half families.
Well it would unless you have absolutely no sense of volume, or if you consider anything less that 6 inches of height 'not covering' the plate.
But back to your main point, if recommended amounts are so vague why do KFC market their buckets as 'family' meals? Why do Domino's suggest their large pizza is for 2-4 people? Clearly it's not as random as you seem so desperate to imply.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Quite but there is a large gap between claiming you 'could' eat £20 worth of KFC to yourself as a challenge and saying 'its pretty easy to spend £20 for one person' as spoffle did. The latter implies you can accidentally or tempt yourself into eating £20's worth of food without batting an eyelid.
No I'm not, you just don't understand what you're talking about.
Recommended daily amounts are very vague. They can only be that. Are you suggesting that people of differing sizes should stick to the RDA?
You again, do not understand what you are talking about. 16 stone is not particularly heavy at all, and body builders are typically not particularly heavy for their size, as their structure is not particularly dense.
Body type has a direct bearing on weight...
The reason KFC consider it a meal for a family is due to RDA, it's vague and can't be anything but.
As I've said, with regards to RDA, it's not based on volume, it's based on calories.
Based on RDA, and RDA is based on calories, not volume. I didn't claim that it's random either, I said vague, they are different words that mean different things.
It's not really a challenge though, as the volume of food isn't particularly high.
Why is that hard for you to understand? Meat is not high volume at all, and KFC is expensive compared to other places.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
He's not fat, he's a body builder who consider 16 stone to be 'not heavy at all' which will come as interesting news to medical professionals everywhere 
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
LMAO, and you accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
You are essentially saying that eating a ball of butter the size of a tennis ball would be the same as eating the same sized ball of marshmallow.
I think you need to learn the difference between volume (i.e size) with weight/density.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
LMAO, and you accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
You are essentially saying that eating a ball of butter the size of a tennis ball would be the same as eating the same sized ball of marshmallow.
I think you need to learn the difference between volume (i.e size) with density (and/or weight).
[FnG]magnolia;25046959 said:He's not fat, he's a body builder who consider 16 stone to be 'not heavy at all' which will come as interesting news to medical professionals everywhere
Making crap up now! Cool. If someone is a medical professional, then they'll know what they're talking about. Stop acting as if 16 stone is super heavy, it's not.
People vary massively in size, so can you imply that a weight of 16 stone is terrible based solely off the weight and that's it? Delusional.
Also, I never claimed to be a body builder, which proves your ignorance. Not everyone who lifts weights are body builders.
You don't know what you're talking about, and you've had to twist my words to be able to argue against what I said.
You are essentially saying that eating a ball of butter the size of a tennis ball would be the same as eating the same sized ball of marshmallow.
No I'm not, I said nothing of the sort. Stop making stuff up.
I know the difference between it, you don't as you were the one going on about volume. You started talking about plate sizes, ergo, you don't understand the difference between volume and mass.
I was pointing out that such a meal wouldn't be a "challenge" because it's not that much in terms of mass that it would be too much.
I don't know why I didn't just say this in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Isn't lifting weights rather pointless unless your main goal is to build your body in some way? This is 2013, we have machines to lift heavy things nowadays so there's no real practical reasons to be strong is there?
You said eating £20's worth of KFC wouldn't be a problem, equating its ease to volume. It's all in print above....
Are you stupid or just trying to wind me up. The area covered by food on a plate IS volume not mass.
So you are claiming, on record, that eating £20 worth of KFC (which includes their largest bucket and another meal on top) wouldn't be a challenge for the vast majority of people?
If you're on a wind up then well done you got me but if not then put the doobie and the beer down and go to bed.
Last edited:
What does it matter the reasons why? Some people enjoy lifting weights and doing it for strength.
This is irrelevant to the point, though being weak would be pretty unpleasant. Way to straw man my point though.
No, I was talking about a specific meal, as I've said before, a 16 piece boneless box.
You'll find that it's area. Plates are 2 dimensional.
See what I said about twisting what I said? I never made the claim you're suggesting here. You've deliberately changed what I said. I didn't say their largest bucket with a meal on top.
I mentioned a boneless box, a 16 peice boneless box is about £20, mini-fillets aren't that big.
Seriously
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
Plates are 2 dimensional? What?