ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yes and you can do that with homemade chicken soup, chili, cold pasta salad, chicken or eggplant parmesan etc. Cook one day a week, eat healthy for the next 4-5 days, with very little time involved for those days. Want a little variety, have a tuna/egg salad/pbj sandwich one day a week. Its not that friggin' difficult. That single mom with 3 kids is likely to be on food stamps. Tell her to shop on the edges of the grocery store (where the real food is) and stay out of the middle of the grocery store (where the crap is). It really is a mindset. Now you are telling people how to live... Isn't this a free country! BTW, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 You people who ignore all of the other factors involved need to open your eyes. Here's a fact: Eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight. I have never met one of my NE Philly clients' parents who didn't understand what food was bad for them, what food was good for them, and that had any valid excuse for why they ate crappy. And as a guardian ad litem, I have to ask those questions. In the end, the single moms I work with eventually laugh and just admit that they don't want to do the work to prepare a meal. So maybe they had bad role models. They definitely have little money. And in the end, it's laziness that prevents them from cooking a decent meal for them and their kids. But there are always cigarettes, cable TV, and booze around. And when I advocate that their kids be removed from the home (which happens occasionally) I always point to that conversation and the luxuries that the mom can afford instead of feeding their kid a good meal. Buck up and stop making excuses for people. Have some faith in them. They can fix things themselves--outside influences are influences--in the end, they choose their own path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yes and you can do that with homemade chicken soup, chili, cold pasta salad, chicken or eggplant parmesan etc. Cook one day a week, eat healthy for the next 4-5 days, with very little time involved for those days. Want a little variety, have a tuna/egg salad/pbj sandwich one day a week. Its not that friggin' difficult. That single mom with 3 kids is likely to be on food stamps. Tell her to shop on the edges of the grocery store (where the real food is) and stay out of the middle of the grocery store (where the crap is). It really is a mindset. You know last week my wife and I did this really crazy thing. We walked to the grocery store and bought lunches for the week. And they were pre-made, large salads at Whole Foods for a whopping $5 each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 OVER eating is as much an addiction that drinking alcohol is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 OVER eating is as much an addiction that drinking alcohol is. And you're point here is? Don't tell me...obesity is a disease? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Here's a fact: Eat less than you burn and you'll lose weight. Just nitpicking here, but being purely technical, that's not always true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Now you are telling people how to live... Isn't this a free country! BTW, I agree. No, just that actions have consequences. If a person is ready to accept those consequences, go ahead. Its the blame others issue I have a problem with. The Marlboro man didn't cause me to start smoking, its a choice I made and I will live with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Have you guys ever had kids to take care of and entertain, with no significant other, had to work long hours to pay for everything, bills to pay, collectors to dodge, making sure the kids have everything they need, making sure you have everything you need, while living with no money at or below the poverty line? In years past, most women didn't hike up their skirts on the first date and men didn't drop their drawers and make kids until a rather lengthy period of engagement, and got married before hatching a kid. Few folks used credit. They weren't ga-ga over material possessions. Lived within their means, and structured their lives accordingly. But in the mid'60's Lyndon Johnson and the welfare state came into being. A cynical thing, designed to tie people to the government umbilical cord, and guarantee votes for his party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 In years past, most women didn't hike up their skirts on the first date and men didn't drop their drawers and make kids until a rather lengthy period of engagement, and got married before hatching a kid.Few folks used credit. They weren't ga-ga over material possessions. Lived within their means, and structured their lives accordingly. But in the mid'60's Lyndon Johnson and the welfare state came into being. A cynical thing, designed to tie people to the government umbilical cord, and guarantee votes for his party. That's not true except in some disneyfied 1950s TV land. For most of recorded history, the situation was much worse than it is now. Do you think sexual mores were better in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, or 1800s than they are today? Set aside the nice Victorian "notions" for a second think about this before you answer. The average person in those eras was doing a lot worse things than having sex on the first date, with people a lot younger than we see now. I know this is part of your world-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket mentality but stop and think about some of these things some time. Just because you see something bad in the world doesn't mean it's always worse than it used to be or that things were once upon a time so much better. Tieing the death of your fantasyland to Johnson is really a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 You do seven breasts on Sunday and you only have to nuke them during the week. I do that all the time. Not to hijack this too much, but how long do you nuke them? I work some very odd hours and the wife wants to make up some stuff ahead of time so I am not hitting the drive-thru on my way home. She made the chicken breasts last week (marinated in Wegman's Tangy marinade and baked in the oven) but I had no clue how long to nuke it, so I ended up making a sandwich and not eating the cold chicken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 And you're point here is? Don't tell me...obesity is a disease? No addictive over-eating is. Just like over drinking alcohol. I am sorry obesity is a consequence of that over-eating, just like the slobering drunk. Ever notice how the two really don't go hand in hand. Sure there a ton of fat drunks out there... But, every one I ever knew (really bad drunk with bad addictions) was a skinny as a rail! Now that may not always be the case and that is pretty bad generalization... But, I have noticed the trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 In years past, most women didn't hike up their skirts on the first date and men didn't drop their drawers and make kids until a rather lengthy period of engagement, and got married before hatching a kid. Where do you come from? Pleasantville? Oh really? Ever here the term flapper? Oh wait, you were 18 in the 1920's. Oh, and I know you said the word: MOST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 That's not true except in some disneyfied 1950s TV land. For most of recorded history, the situation was much worse than it is now. Do you think sexual mores were better in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, or 1800s than they are today? Set aside the nice Victorian "notions" for a second think about this before you answer. The average person in those eras was doing a lot worse things than having sex on the first date, with people a lot younger than we see now. I know this is part of your world-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket mentality but stop and think about some of these things some time. Just because you see something bad in the world doesn't mean it's always worse than it used to be or that things were once upon a time so much better. Tieing the death of your fantasyland to Johnson is really a stretch. I think he never heard of the "tulip bubble" when people were ga-ga over Holland tulips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 Not to hijack this too much, but how long do you nuke them? I work some very odd hours and the wife wants to make up some stuff ahead of time so I am not hitting the drive-thru on my way home. She made the chicken breasts last week (marinated in Wegman's Tangy marinade and baked in the oven) but I had no clue how long to nuke it, so I ended up making a sandwich and not eating the cold chicken. I started the thread... Do what you want BM... Make as many posts as you want and DO NOT MERGE them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Not to hijack this too much, but how long do you nuke them? I work some very odd hours and the wife wants to make up some stuff ahead of time so I am not hitting the drive-thru on my way home. She made the chicken breasts last week (marinated in Wegman's Tangy marinade and baked in the oven) but I had no clue how long to nuke it, so I ended up making a sandwich and not eating the cold chicken. That's a great question because what I've found is that every microwave is very different. The one we have at work would heat them through in maybe 30 seconds and our one at home takes at least a minute. You really just have to play around with your micorwave and just remember how long it takes. I do it in 30 second increments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 That's not true except in some disneyfied 1950s TV land. For most of recorded history, the situation was much worse than it is now. Do you think sexual mores were better in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, or 1800s than they are today? Set aside the nice Victorian "notions" for a second think about this before you answer. The average person in those eras was doing a lot worse things than having sex on the first date, with people a lot younger than we see now. I know this is part of your world-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket mentality but stop and think about some of these things some time. Just because you see something bad in the world doesn't mean it's always worse than it used to be or that things were once upon a time so much better. Tieing the death of your fantasyland to Johnson is really a stretch. Uh...hygiene, medical acumen, infant mortality then was not-quite-like the 20th century. Replacement kids were constantly being popped out to support societies that were nearly 100% dependent on manual labor. And infanticide was common, if it meant excess mouths to feed. Sometime in the future, I'll tell you more about 'ol Lyndon and his strategy. So you will have another opportunity to be snide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 Uh...hygiene, medical acumen, infant mortality then was not-quite-like the 20th century. Replacement kids were constantly being popped out to support societies that were nearly 100% dependent on manual labor. And infanticide was common, if it meant excess mouths to feed. Sometime in the future, I'll tell you more about 'ol Lyndon and his strategy. So you will have another opportunity to be snide. Let me guess. Those (LBJ's tenure) were your formative years as a young pup? No wonder. Hey, did you expect anything BUT a snide comment from me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Let me guess. Those (LBJ's tenure) were your formative years as a young pup? No wonder. Those were the wonder years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 Those were the wonder years. Let me guess he had a hippie sister named Karen, a brother named Wayne who tormented him, and a overbearing ex-marine father named Jack... All who influenced him significantly. And he blames LBJ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 That's a great question because what I've found is that every microwave is very different. The one we have at work would heat them through in maybe 30 seconds and our one at home takes at least a minute. You really just have to play around with your micorwave and just remember how long it takes. I do it in 30 second increments. Fair enough, thanks. I was worried about zapping the juices out of them and having them get tough and dry on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts