[Closed] Apparently eating too much makes you obese...... shocker!

It seems to be quite a reasonable reporting of research that differentiates between several factors involved in overeating.

Your post however is dumbed down and reactionary of the type normally associated with the daily mail.

So, why'd you post this?

EDIT: Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?

Mmmmmmmm. Snacking and super sizing. Arrggggggg.

I think most fat people know why they're fat, so stop ramming it down their throats 😉

absolute rubbish

cheese is the food of the gods, good for you in fact

i'll hear nothing said against it

ever

😡 + shaking fist

Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?

Scientific research I understand, stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't. Neither do I understand the need to fill column inches with minor studies of even less significance knowing full well that it will provoke reactions such as mine.

I'd be much more impressed with a study into the reasons behind excessive eating, especially into the issues of lack of self worth that are self evident in the condition, but then perhaops that might draw the media into having to recognise its role in undermining body image, but hey thats just my opinion and in no way sceintific.

Well, I found it interesting, if a little simplified.

Several factors are involved in energy intake - the number of calories (energy) in a specific amount of food (energy density), portion size and how many meals and snacks a day eaten. The researchers say that while all of these have gone up, increases in the number of eating occasions and portion size seem to account for most of the change.

I've often heard it said that the excessive use of sugar in processed food, and the increased use of processed food, are the major factors in increased obesity.
This study seems to contradict that, so it does raise an important issue.

the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat whether it's from too much pasta or from too much sugar.

don't eat too much kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.

Kev

the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat

Depending on how much insulin is around 🙂

stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't

If you think that's what they've done then you don't understand it. Firstly you've not read their paper, just the BBC report which isn't necessarily well done. Secondly, if you sit their stating the obvious all day you won't get published or have funding for long.

Well, as someone who's done a fair amount of scientific research, I'm with B_B on this one. This line is particularly excellent for stating the bleeding obvious:

"This study also looked at portion size and studies have shown that having larger portions of food leads to an increased intake."

I wish I could get funding for such easy research!

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

don't eat too [s]much [/s] many kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.

Sorry, grammar Nazi at work

Well, I've read and re-read the article, desperately tried understanding the complicated scientific analyis and complex conclusion but to no avail.

So, STW'ers... will eating too much food make me become more biggerer?

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

I spend my working life reading crap scientific papers, but for you, I read the real abstract of this one too:

Conclusions

While all three components have contributed to some extent to 30-y changes in TE [total energy], changes in EO [eating occasions] and PS [portion size] have accounted for most of the change.

So, pretty much what the British scientist on the beeb website said. Also pretty bloody obvious, apart from the acronyms, which were first defined in an earlier paragraph of the paper

So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

.....thats what I posted wasn't it??

and thats my point, the stating of the obvious simply undermines the real issues underlying the problem. Frankly other than the BBC report I have no idea what the study says, and that'll be true for the majority of media quoted studies. Picking out the tit-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned.

I don't know if anyone watched it, but a few years back there was a documentary about publishing the Sunday Sport. The underlying theme to which was a front headline of the salacious variety about an MP being gay. All week long they were taking advice from a lawyer about the headline and the story, and at the 11th hour the editor having been convinced by the lawyer that he was walking through a legal minefield simply changed the headline to MP not Gay,under which he published exactly the same story as he was going to print anyway. Bascially nothing printed was untrue per se, but it was VERY deliberately, VERY misleading. Same here.

So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?

Something to do whilst eating doughnuts?

the bbc article headine tickled me most:

"[i]Snacking [b]clue[/b] to obesity epidemic[/i] 😯

Picking out the ****-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned

Absolutely.

Snacking clue to obesity epidemic

Well you could be comparing eating large meals and fasting in between to eating smaller meals and snacking inbetween.. That would seem a reasonable question.

In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.

Also pretty bloody obvious

Not really. It's perfectly plausible that the changes are due to the changes in types of foods consumed, rather than frequency or quantity.

That's why this kind of research is useful.

In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.

This seems to be the basis behind most of the [s]papers[/s] dross I reject from journals on a regular basis. Seeing as the other referees and editor usually agree, I guess I'm not the only one who's a little fed up with 'scientists' stating the obvious and expecting it to be published as novel work. What's worse is when it actually is, then gets some brainless press release over the top of it.

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate.

If you actually bother to understand what the paper was about, the conclusion was not at all obvious.

Yes, it's obvious that "super sizing" and "snacking" will make you fat. That's not what this paper was about.

This paper investigated how people were coming to consume more calories than they did 30 years ago. Was it:

a) Eating bigger meals ("super sizing")
b) Eating more meals ("snacking")
c) Eating fattier food

It's not at all obvious to me which of these factors it was. This paper concludes (a) and (b) have had a much bigger effect than (c).

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake

Well, if the closest you get to exercise is the walk from your house to your car, it's not hard to see how your energy usage could be way less than that required by an active worker.

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate

My lad had a bf% of <10% (visible abs). He broke his foot playing football (actually while pissed celebrating their cup win). 6 weeks of enforced sofa sitting and he's up to >20% fat. Amusingly the day after the cast came off he raced in Mayhem. He didn't enjoy being a fat unfit git at all....

Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO 😉

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake

Well the evidence is now clear that the NATURE of the calories consumed has a greater effect than the AMOUNT.

There was a link on here the other day about that.

Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO

But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...

Of course its bleeding obvious. Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person. Obesity generally is a function of the intake exceeding the output. There may very well be underlying issues with mental health or whatever, but thats it, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...

OH FOR ****S SAKE!

Calories in
Calories out

Please tell us everything that affects this magic calories out figure?

The scientists (poss not from Harvard I forget) suggested that diet was MORE important than exercise, not unimportant bloody obviously. You said that one was more important than the other, I disagreed, which in no way suggested that the other has zero importance.

Christ alive.

Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person

🙄

A bit touchy today molgrips 🙂

Ok, I apologise for that.

But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.

*sigh*

Ok, I apologise for that.

But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.

*sigh*

I suspect if you look at the calorie intake of fatties and not fatties there won't be a huge difference. But when you look at their calories out there will be huge variations.

Or put it another way... you can eat any old crap if you're very active.

you can eat any old crap if you're very active

I can't. Trust me, I've been there.

The body is a very complicated system, with lots of inputs, outputs and many systems operating all the time, some in conflict, some in co-operation. It works differently in different people, and what's more it changes depending on what you eat. Couple that with psychological factors and you've got mayhem.

If you read the stories of people who've tried to lose weight on here (an active sport forum) you'll see all sorts of results from all sorts of different things. Sometimes people exercise and try to restrict calories and just can't do it; sometimes people just cut out pies and go biking twice a week and the weight goes. Some folk don't even have any excess weight to begin with regardless.

You've only got to look at skinny lazy people (of whom there are many) who fill their faces to see that it is NOT as simple as eat less, do more. High metabolism, you say? Why? What makes their metabolism high? High in what way? Where does the extra energy they eat go?

The most utterly damaging thing is when those who happen to be skinny think they know it all and pour scorn on 'fatties', or come on here and assume that you're filling your face and being a couch potato despite you telling them otherwise - because they think it's simple and you're stupid. We're not all stupid, you're the one being stupid, because it's not simple.

I wish I knew the proper name for this kind of argument. It's like saying that the shootings in LA are caused by all the guns. True, but completely useless because if you took away all the guns they'd find another way to murder each other of course.

*sigh*

Drink a pint of lucosade (~500 calories), now go for a ride for an hour (~500 calories).

Tomorow drink the same calories in olive oil and go ride.

The next day drink the same calories, but diesel, and go ride.

Calories in Vs Caloires out says you'd be the same weight after all 3.

"Fat is bad" would tell you that you'd weigh the most after the olive oil.

Common sense tells you you'd be dead after the diesel.

In reality (well my understanding of it), you'd lose the most weight on the olive oil diet. There's a study quoted in Ferris' book that compared 3 groups of dieters on 1000 calorie/day diets.

90% of calories from carbs put on weight (despite being in a supposed 1500calorie deficit).

90% calories from fat lost the most weight.

90% of calories from protein lost somewhere inbetween.

Quite right, tinas. Although I found out that study was done in 1956 and then was seemingly forgotten. Although I think some people doubted his methods.

I suspect if you look at the calorie intake of fatties and not fatties there won't be a huge difference. But when you look at their calories out there will be huge variations.

Yea, fat people have a 'high' metabolism because they're bigger, we also eat more to compensate :p

Michael Phelps eats 12000 calories a day, he looks in pretty good shape

Breakfast

Phelps kick starts his day and his metabolism with three fried-egg sandwiches, but with a few customised additions: cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and, of course, mayonnaise.

Amuse-bouche out of the way, he throws back two cups of coffee and sits down to an omelette - containing five eggs - and a bowl of grits, a porridge of coarsely ground corn. He's not finished yet. Bring on the three slices of French toast, with powdered sugar on top to make sure there's no skimping on the calories. And to finish: three chocolate chip pancakes.

Lunch

With breakfast wearing off and the hunger pangs biting, Phelps downs half a kilogram - ie a whole packet - of enriched pasta and two large ham and cheese sandwiches. On white bread with loads of mayo on top. To remove any chance that his body will run out of fuel, he washes this down with about 1,000 calories of energy drink.

Dinner

Time to load up on carbs for the next day's training. Another half kilo of enriched pasta goes down the hatch with a chaser of an entire pizza and another 1,000 calories of energy drinks. And so to bed. As Phelps told US television channel NBC yesterday: "Eat, sleep and swim, that's all I can do."

Still kind of make sense though,

Eat carbs, body burns them, stores any it can as fat, and stores the remaining fat in the diet as fat due to the insulin response.

Eat oil, and the genreal restriction in calories willmake you lose weigh as its burnt but not stored as theres no insulin to help store it?

Eat protein and the same calorie restrictive effect as oil, only no/less muscle wastage hence lower weigh loss?

Just my hypothesis.

Eat nothing and then see what happens.

That Phelps diet seems almost the wrong way around, all the protein in the morning, carbs in the afternoon?

Although I'm not convinced, last olympics everyone was saying he drank nothing but chocolate milk (google the GOMAD for why this should work)

What's French toast (says the man with a French passport)?

Well today's activity has included sex, converting trees into firewood, a couple of kms in the pool and bicycle transport. On the average American calorie intake I'd have already run out of calories and be incapable of accompanying Madame to the sales. "Be right with you dear!".

This could be expensive. :-/

I have nothing to add.

This is because I'm not overweight and seemingly this means that my methods of weight control are irrelevant to those that are overweight.

Eat nothing and then see what happens.

Not a lot (litteraly)

1st - you have no energy, so no excercise, so the body moves onto stage 2

2nd - the body eats its own energy stores, muscle and fat

3rd - you eventualy binge and put on the weight as fat again but your metabolisms now lowered due to the muscle loss.

Michael Phelps eats 12000 calories a day, he looks in pretty good shape

Yeah, I don't expect be burns up that much in exercise tho. That'd be like cycling flat out for 12 hours. Which backs up my point. Something's going on inside his body that means that lot doesn't get stored as fat.

Eat carbs, body burns them, stores any it can as fat, and stores the remaining fat in the diet as fat due to the insulin response

Broadly.. according to wiki insulin has many effects - one of which is that it promotes your body to burn carbs (rather than fat), another is that it promotes the storage of fat. So you're not burning up your stores of fat, and you're depleting the blood sugar you have. And guess what, one of the triggers for hunger is lower blood sugar...

If I give in and have a twix in the afternoon, 60 mins later I am very hungry. If I don't, I will be less hungry and last until dinnertime. Eating more sugar makes me hungrier than if I'd eaten nothing at all...

My sister doesn't eat breakfast because she says if she does it makes her hungrier mid morning and she needs to eat again. I thought she was talking arse but now I see there's a mechanism behind it.

Eat nothing and then see what happens

What's your point caller?

This is because I'm not overweight and seemingly this means that my methods of weight control are irrelevant to those that are overweight.

Not necessarily. It clearly works for you. More evidence and information allows us to build a better picture 🙂

one of which is that it promotes your body to burn carbs (rather than fat), another is that it promotes the storage of fat. So you're not burning up your stores of fat, and you're depleting the blood sugar you have. And guess what, one of the triggers for hunger is lower blood sugar...

If I give in and have a twix in the afternoon, 60 mins later I am very hungry. If I don't, I will be less hungry and last until dinnertime. Eating more sugar makes me hungrier than if I'd eaten nothing at all...

That explains why I can quite happily munch my way through an enire multipack of mars bars :p

Right, I'm guessing that's a joke TINAS, but... it does seem that the overweight have greater self-control issues when it comes to food than slimmer people.

How were people rewarded when they were young, or what was done to make you feel better as a kid?

Maybe, depends on the size of the multipack, 200g bars of chcolate can be dispatched pretty promptly (especialy on the bike when I wont notice the sugar rush).

92.5kg +/-2.5kg for the past 3 years, went down to the 80's on the i-dave diet but 2 weeks holliday* + 2 weeks in a hotel* with work + staying at a friends means I'm back to 94kg.]

*semi i-dave, fryup breakfast followed by steak for dinner every night in the same restaurant got boring after 5 days on both occasions so I sliped. Recon the result would have been much worse on pasta etc.

And no I had a perfectly normal childhood, probably less sweets/junk than most kids and mostly home cooked meals.

Unless your sugesting that the retrictions as a kid meant I now want them more?

See TINAS, 4 weeks for you to gain, what, a stone?... I think a bit of that is You. It's not just the food, but your relationship with it, how you respond to boredom etc.

I trained stupidly hard for a week, eating utter crap, as much of it as I could. Straight after I didn't train at all for over a week. I drank quite a bit during that time.

I stayed the same weight.

How?

I ate less.

I'm not trying to be a prick about all this.

Did you get taken to McDonalds etc as a kid?
Did you get to choose the snacks you ate or was it determined by your parents?
Is your father overweight?

it does seem that the overweight have greater self-control issues when it comes to food than slimmer people.

Hmm, I think perhaps that's part of it but also partly physiological factors. For example, if you've become used to eating lots of carbs I suspect your insulin response changes, perhaps producing too much as your body adapts to a carb rich diet and becomes very good at putting away carbs. I used to eat even more carbs many years ago and I'd get so hungry I couldn't even think. Because there's lag in the system, if I ate 400g of sweets in one go, say, that dumped so much insulin that it'd still be hanging around when all the sugar was gone and cause low blood sugar making me crazy hungry.

When I was used to a carb rich diet, being hungry wasn't just fancying a snack. Especially if I was biking, it was an immense effort not to eat something. I couldn't concentrate, I felt ill, I certainly couldn't do any work.. I'd be sweating with the effort of it all. And because I'd been told to eat carbs, I'd go and get something carby which would only put me off for so long.

It's all very well saying don't eat stuff, but sometimes that just was not possible for well being - because I was not eating the right kinds of food (although according to conventional wisdom I was - this was years after the 400g of sweets phase).

And people who haven't ended up in this situation for whatever reason just think you're weak. Which is frigging annoying.

Did you get taken to McDonalds etc as a kid?
Did you get to choose the snacks you ate or was it determined by your parents?
Is your father overweight?

I feel like I've been in a similar position to tinas, so I'll answer.

1) McDonalds? Never even heard of it til I was about 14, and there was one in my whole county. Went in about twice before I went to university. No fast food for us, my Mum was a PE teacher and very much into healthy eating
2) Snacks strictly rationed.
3) My Dad was always a beanpole - despite eating like a horse. Now at 66 he's a beanpole with a bit of a tummy. Unless he does some strenuous DIY whereupon the tummy vanishes in days. I take after my mum, who used to be solidly built although never fat, but she trained herself to eat very small portions so is now skinny as.

I do absoutely love sweet food, more than you probably can imagine, but not for the reasons you mention. I suspect it's partly the same reason that some people love a drink...

Re taking time off exercise - in November I was 94kg, after training all summer (with varying degrees of success). I didn't do anything at all until about Feb, and I'd lost maybe 2-3kg. When my parents were here recently I had two weeks off, during that time I iDaved well and that was when I was 82kg - after not exercising.

I guess my body likes to stay the same weight.

you have my sympathy ...............fatty 😉

So, food sources which are easier / harder for the body to assimilate into fatty tissues result in less / more fat. Again, hardly science.

There are poor researchers in every institute, Harvard included.

Sure, it makes a mediocre news article, but a pretty poor journal paper. I'm highly surprised at the journal it ended up in.

You've only got to look at skinny lazy people (of whom there are many) who fill their faces to see that it is NOT as simple as eat less, do more. High metabolism, you say? Why? What makes their metabolism high? High in what way? [b]Where does the extra energy they eat go?[/b]

I'm a slim, active person, with a fair bit of 'leeway' - if I eat a corker of a meal or don't do sport for a while I don't put on weight (yet!).
I have a crude theory (based on myself) that if I eat a huge meal, I get way too hot throughout the day/evening - that's generally how we 'waste' energy (creating heat) so I reckon my body just gets better at 'wasting' the excess calories.
My wife thinks I'm mad.....

DrP

See, the only difference there molly is that chocolate wasn't strictly rationed for me as a child. We had a huge draw full of chocolate and crips that we could tuck into as we wished. There are 4 of us and none of us overweight. Interestingly... one of my brother in laws grew up with sweet stuff being strictly rationed, many a time I've caught him sneeking off to stuff his face from the chocolate draw.

Maybe, just maybe, if you're right and sweets perform the same function as alcohol...you should start drinking to help you lose weight?

So, food sources which are easier / harder for the body to assimilate into fatty tissues result in less / more fat. Again, hardly science

Whatever you say, prof 🙂

DrP - quite possibly.. my Dad always used to be a very hot blooded person but now isn't. And he still doesn't really get fat.

See, the only difference there molly is that chocolate wasn't strictly rationed for me as a child.

Yes this is something that has occured to me. The rationing of treats could have reinforced the happiness aspect.

There are 4 of us and none of us overweight

Quite possibly genetic then 🙂

You DO have a compulsive personality then, and you've said you like a drink. Perhaps drink to you is like sweets for me, being a prohibited thing (when you were young) and associated with happiness and fun perhaps if your parents drank socially?

Mine did and do, and our best family times as kids were when loads of people were around say Christmas or New Year, and of course drink was flowing. I think my Sister in particular associated drink with happiness and fun, which was reinforced at university, leading to drinking too much really, until she had kids.

I sometimes think I'm lucky that I can't apparently take booze.

Not so sure about that. My Mum was overweight which caused her to become diabetic. My Dad is however slim / atheletic.

Interestingly, neither of them really drink and certainly didn't when we were kids... too skint and just not bothered beyond enjoying a nice glass of wine.

Alcohol wasn't really prohibited either... was bought booze by them for Fri & Sat nights from about the age of 14/15. By 17 they were letting me smoke weed in their garage.

How do you conclude I have a compulsive personality??

How do you conclude I have a compulsive personality??

Cos you're always obsessing about dieting even though you're skinny as ****. And when I ask you why you don't really have a reason 🙂 Plus I seem to remember you admitting you were a bit compulsive in some other thread.. perhaps about exercise. You must admit you are an exercise junkie?

(btw not meant in an offensive way, I hope you are not offended. Apologies if you are)

Not at all offended... takes a great deal more than that!

I just like joining in on diet threads... all the exercise means that I need to think about the fuel I put in! That and my Dad really does obssess about food... always has and I think it's a big part of why I look on food and exercise the way I do.

As for compulsive... probably a bit, I do like a nice routine... I also like doing things to a level that is beyond rationally sensible... doesn't particularly matter what, as long as it's excessive!

Eat nothing and then see what happens

What's your point caller?

My point is that the bare bones of the issue is that if you don't eat you will not put weight on. So at that point we have established one end of the spectrum. At the other there is the fact that if you stuff your face constantly and don’t exercise you will put weight on. So I think its fair to say that obesity in broad terms is a function of energy in exceeding energy out. You can dress it up however you like, but that’s the deal whether you like it or not. I have throughout conceded that there are issues that add complexity to the subject, but you cannot deny the simple facts. The vast majority of obese folk simply eat too much for their bodies energy needs. FACT!

Yeah, I don't expect be burns up that much in exercise tho. That'd be like cycling flat out for 12 hours. Which backs up my point. Something's going on inside his body that means that lot doesn't get stored as fat.

Haven't you read the part in the 4 hour body about the cold water treatment? Water is 24 time more thermally conductive than air and donig 3-4 hour swimming would burn loads of calories

The nasa guy in 4 hour body lost loads of weight through cold water baths, showers and drinking ice cold water.

So I think its fair to say that obesity in broad terms is a function of energy in exceeding energy out.

Did you actually read and think about my posts?

It is a simple equation and it is true.

BUT

[b]Energy out is more than just the exercise you do[/b]

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Yes, how about you ?

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I must say it doesn't seem terribly useful I'm afraid. What are we expected to take from this simple equation?

It's clear to me that there are ways of making weight loss much easier than simply restricting calories and riding more. Are you saying that's all nonsense?

[i]It's clear to me that there are ways of making weight loss much easier than simply restricting calories and riding more. Are you saying that's all nonsense?[/i]

obviously eating low GI and cutting out sugar helps, as has been proven by iDave and even to yourself to certain degree... but to get those last few pounds off Mol maybe try eating a bit less ? 🙂

Kev

but to get those last few pounds off Mol maybe try eating a bit less ?

If you've been following the soap opera you'd know that eating less has actually been my downfall of late.

yeh I did read something about bingeing the other day !

TSY, MG.

If you two ride to 1/10th of the rate at which you post on here.

Then I reckon we're on for a top level finish at SiTS, even with me draggin my ass about the place.

How are the arrangements coming along TSY ?.

😉

If you two ride to 1/10th of the rate at which you post on here.

If I could ride whilst being at work then rest assured, I would 🙂

rest

WTF is rest??

Can I quote you on that at SITS?

Thats the spirit 😀

Now !. WTF is happening, I hear nothing. Are we up to a [i]full strength[/i] with respect to number of team members ?.

Anyone heard anything from iDave ?.

I will have spare lights should anyone need them.
Good'uns

Hmmm... I will still organise this, although Molly you've nto replied but I might have to go to Swansea for a shotgun wedding.

Numbers so far are looking a bit shaky.

Dave said he was in.
Solo you're in.
SimonB is in.

[i]Hmmm... I will still organise this[/i]
Yeah, I thought that was the idea 🙂

Hhmmm. I've started to hijack this thread.

Best get on the e-myther instead.

Apologies to the OP.
😉

Michael Phelps calorie intake is related to being in cold(ish) water for much of the day. BAT at work.

although Molly you've nto replied

I did!

I'm in!

I will arrange a reserve if the baby starts making a move.

Are we a 4 man convent team or 5 person monastery team

We need a woman....

[i]We need a woman....
[/i]

Being a father with another one on the way, I think we'll be keeping you away from the wimminz.

😉