Well, it's my turn. Mother Nature, I have a complaint to register.
At the end of this five-month sojourn into the land of the skinny (ha), I have just received a chart on how to determine my ideal caloric intake. It gives the option of four activity levels: sedate (no regular exercise) to very active (exercising everyday) and identifies the two genders. Then there is a little math problem you do and . . . viola . . . you can figure out how many calories to eat to maintain your ideal weight.
Example: A female who wants to weigh 140 pounds but never exercise, will multiply 140 x 10 to = 1,400 calories a day. Exercise twice a week, and it's 140 x 11 = 1,540 calories.
The issue? The women's multiplier scale is 10-13 (10 being least active and 13 being most active); the men's scale is 13-16. In other words, a male lump--one who NEVER exercises--gets to use the same multiplier as a woman who exercises seven friggin' times a week. So you could be a marathon running woman but you still cannot eat more calories than the fat-ass guy next door, who sit in front of the TV all day, doing nothing.Marathon woman: 130 x 13 = 1,690
Lump man: 170 x 13 = 2,210
I know this is just biology. Facts is facts. But dammit . . .
THAT ISN'T FAIR!!!!
Just sayin.
It's the fat house.
5 comments:
Fuck that. Bring on the Snickers!
I actually ate chips and ice cream yesterday (but stayed inside my stupid effin calorie count).
:o) I've got my priorities straight!
What if you just ate the Lump Guy? Do you get to divide your multiplier by his scale? Better yet, eat an active guy and take the week off.
Don't worry. You'll still out live us.
Nice blog. I'll see you soon..
First, if I just eat the junk (mmmmm), but keep it under the calorie total, is that still okay?
Fair-wise, men suck in so many ways. Pregnancy, childbirth, exercise, weight, strength, peeing... I could go on.
As far as living longer, that is a mixed blessing. It is longer to feel old and decrepit.
Hmmmm, think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed?
Post a Comment