According to your profile you are 18. Men often continue to grow into their mid twenties. Even if you have finished growing heightwise it is fairly likely that you will continue to grow broader and pack some more muscle and soft tissue weight on. Also, your bone density will probably continue to increase into your mid-to-late twenties. In other words, if you are the same weight in ten years - you will probably be noticeably skinnier than you are right now.
(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Really? I'm about 5'8" and 9 stone, which isn't that much more than you've said.
Look at featherweight boxers like Barry McGuigan
At about 5'5-6", he fought at nine stone which means in practice that he was actually nine and a half stone or more and dehydrated down to nine for weigh in. He looks extremely skinny - can you imagine him a stone lighter than that?
Here is Bantamweight Jorge Arce at eight and a half stone at 5'4":
Narrow and extremely skinny. Now weight increases roughly with height cubed... Can you imagine someone 8cm taller who looks healthy or normal at that weight?
Last edited by Mark85; 13-07-2012 at 18:00.
It's not too bad, but I felt that it didn't touch on artificial sweeteners that manufacturers are using, which in some studies have been shown to be linked to weight gain, despite having zero or just the one calory. Aspartame seems to be the main one
Or, that sugar is sometimes disguised as sucrose, fructose or saccharide, along with the sweeteners ending in "ol" Xylitol is one that comes to mind immediately
Nor did they touch on high GI food, or how supermarkets have 50 calory ice creams, or 300 calory pizza's, and of course they're really tiny, or how certain products from say weightwatchers are more unhealthy than Sainsburys be good to yourself or Asda good for you
They touched on the "health halo" thing which I thought was a bit flawed. They had two products shown. One 12" Subway sandwich and one tiny burger from Mcdonalds. I'm not going to say that Subways is healthy. A lot of their products contain high levels of sodium, and some are genuinely healthy, but I'll say that I'll defend Subway here.
The 6" sub is more than enough to fill a person up, compared to one burger. The 12" sub came to around 900 calories or so, which is about 450 calories for the 6" sub. I'm guessing the burger had around 450 calories in it as well, but you wouldn't get full on that. With the burger, it's an almost definite that you'll get fries and a drink, but with Subways, so many times I've seen people buying sandwiches and just sandwiches(or "subs" as they call them). Most people get a 6" sub as well, unless perhaps they're really hungry. I've not seen the same behaviour at Mcdonalds
On a personal note, I was quite thirsty so I went in to Sainsburys to get a drink. They were sampling some juice - some tropical, and some orange juice (Sainsburys own) Both were made from real fruits. I tried both and I bought the tropical one. The woman then said that "it's better as well, because it doesn't contain sugar" At the time, I was thinking that of course it contains sugar, in the form of fructose and it said that it also contained aspartame, and the fact that a juice drink is not as good as eating the fruit as it is
Last edited by de_monies; 14-07-2012 at 00:24.