KFC noob advice

Just because someone could eat a bucket to themself without struggling, it doesn't mean they would do it every day.
 
[FnG]magnolia;25046756 said:
Can't you? I asked if you were what most people would call a fatty?

e : this 'ad-hom' thing you keep trotting out is getting very tired.

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).
 
Just because someone could eat a bucket to themself without struggling, it doesn't mean they would do it every day.

I think people are too busy misrepresenting things that other people have said, so that they can argue against that to realise such things.
 
No it's not actually. There's quite a large difference between people. A person who is 8 stone will eat a lot less than a person who 12 stone, and the same goes for a person who is 16 stone.

So no they are not fairly accurate at all.

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.

There's no such thing as "the normal amount". Any dietician who knows what they're talking about can easily acknowledge that people of different weights will eat largely proportionally different amounts.

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.

Your KFC meal would barely fill half a 10" plate...

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.
 
Just because someone could eat a bucket to themself without struggling, it doesn't mean they would do it every day.

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.
 
You are confusing recommended daily amounts of various foodstuffs with the sheer volume of what certain people can eat.

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?

Outside body builders or people with growth hormone issues, no one should be 16 stone anyway.

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.


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.

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.



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.

As I've said, with regards to RDA, it's not based on volume, it's based on calories.


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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
It's not really a challenge though, as the volume of food isn't particularly high.

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. :D

I think you need to learn the difference between volume (i.e size) with weight/density.
 
It's not really a challenge though, as the volume of food isn't particularly high.

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. :D

I think you need to learn the difference between volume (i.e size) with density (and/or weight).
 
Do any of you even lift?

God i love it when it is remotely plausible to post this question!
 
[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 :cool:

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.

LMAO, and you accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about.

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. :D

No I'm not, I said nothing of the sort. Stop making stuff up.

I think you need to learn the difference between volume (i.e size) with weight/density.
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.
 
Also, I never claimed to be a body builder, which proves your ignorance. Not everyone who lifts weights are body builders.

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?

No I'm not, I said nothing of the sort. Stop making stuff up.

You said eating £20's worth of KFC wouldn't be a problem, equating its ease to volume. It's all in print above....

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.

Are you stupid or just trying to wind me up. The area covered by food on a plate IS volume not 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.

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:
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?
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.



You said eating £20's worth of KFC wouldn't be a problem, equating its ease to volume. It's all in print above....

No, I was talking about a specific meal, as I've said before, a 16 piece boneless box.



Are you stupid or just trying to wind me up. The area covered by food on a plate IS volume.

You'll find that it's area. Plates are 2 dimensional.


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?

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.

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.

I mentioned a boneless box, a 16 peice boneless box is about £20, mini-fillets aren't that big.

Seriously :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom