Losing Weight is an Expensive Affair - Or Not?

There's somehow this idea that to lose weight, one needs to eat "healthy food" and that costs more. That's a whole load of crap! Perpetrated by those who want to profit from the ill informed.

It's a matter of eating less (which is actually enough), coupled with exercise. Everything consumed should be in moderation. For the occasional binge, exercise more. A lot more. So if you're eating less, shouldn't it cost less?

There's is really no need for all the fads of specialty diets. No need for some miracle "weight loss" chemicals.

But I have heard of an interesting explanation from a friend though. He never could find the motivation to eat less, exercise more. Instead, he found it works when it hurts his pocket. So he signed onto a programme. Because he has to pay for it, he felt compelled to follow through. I guess that's one way.

I know of a relative who said she was dieting. She skipped rice and ate everything else in moderation. Yet, she was not losing any weight. I wondered why. Found out the reason. She didn't mentioned she binged on potato chips in between meals! Guess what? 20 chips is about 150 calories. That's 3,000 steps of walking to get rid of (roughly, 20 steps = 1 calories). It all adds up. Munch on a packet worth and that's probably the whole day's intact allowance! No wonder her so-called 'diet' wasn't working.

Check out "Basal Metabolic Rate" on the Internet. It's a good topic to start with. Simple maths. Or chemistry. Or biology. Depending on how you prefer to read it.

Was having a Classic Angus burger at Hungry Jacks in the Land of Oz (Burger King in Singapore), it's apparently close to 1,000 calories. And that's without even the fries and soda! Phew. That's half a day worth of intake for most people. The koalas have it good. They munch and sleep all day, get fat, and still look cute.

But I'm no koala. Time to go for a walk ...