The only particular thing I fear is how my parents would react, especially my mother.

While there have been, and are some fat individuals she respects, she has a general bias against them. Basically a bias against any man who weighs over 170 and any woman who weighs over 140 or so.

She has been this way for pretty much as long as I've known her. Basically continues to hold everyone to what's essentially 70s ideals. She'll say a woman who's 5'6" and 160 lbs could stand to lose some weight.

I don't normally bring up politics on here either, but the fact that Trump was a fundamentally despicable individual that she has an intense dislike for, even regardless of any political views or beliefs, and that he also happens to be somewhat large in stature and weight, really doesn't help matters.

I suspect she'd get over it, though it may be difficult at first and I'm *not* looking forward to it.

I don't know how she would react if her son weighed 250 lbs or more, or especially 300+ lbs.


Other than that, I'm not particularly concerned. The average American man weighs around 200 lbs, and the average American white man is around 202 lbs.

Someone who's 250, or 300+ will be heavier than the average, but not out of place since it's common enough to see everywhere.

In fact, in today's American society in the U.S., I'm not aware of any meaningful social advantage of any sort for a man to be any thinner. Actually, if he weighs under 130 there's social disadvantages.

Glutton? Whatever, who doesn't like yummy food?

Relationships? Not worried either. I haven't observed a high likelihood of heavier men being single.

Weak or undisciplined? Not really. They typically have a full-time job of some sort.

Interesting.

Being straight, I never noticed the dearth of weight gain videos that featured men. Kind of thought the gay community would have cornered that.

But, I'll keep this in mind. If I can ever break past this long-running plateau, I'll try to remember to post some. Although, my current goals are 200 and then 250, maybe 300. I can't see myself wanting to go further than around 300ish lbs though.

I know that's smaller than what some folks here may prefer, but hopefully someone would still appreciate it.

I almost can't help but notice that over time, the weight limit of new bathroom scales for sale have increased over time.

What I would like to do is gather anecdotal experiences on whether there's any possible truth to this.

Specifically, what country you live in, the weight limit of your scale, and an estimate of when you got it or when it was made. If you have similar information of scales you've had or used over the years, even better.

Speculating on this, here's my thought. Generally speaking, manufacturers love mass produced volume, because of cheaper per-unit costs. Individuals who don't need the extra capacity, can use the new scales with higher capacity anyway, so their needs are still served.

But perhaps they have also figured out there's an ever increasing chance that at least one regular user of the new scale will need the higher limits, which would mean the lower limit scales won't sell as well.

Here's some anecdotal evidence I've some across to start off.

It's been a real long time, but I think I used to see very old scales, the ones that were mechanical and spring loaded, that topped out at only 220 lbs. They always lose calibration, so you had to turn the wheel on the side to set it to 0, before using it. Later models of a similar design, topped out at 280 lbs.

I have a digital, electronic scale that was new in '07 (I only remember so clearly because I would have gotten it right after relocating), and I still have it, working as well as it did the day it was new. However, it tops out at 280 lbs. I look forward to the day when I will have to replace it, because it will say "Err" every time I try to use it.

Anecdotally, I had someone tell me his wife had a scale that topped out at 350 lbs, though he could only say she had it since before they met. However, I would guess it's under 10 years old.

But if I look at brand new scales for sale, every model I've seen tops out at 400 or 440 lbs.

I should note that I'm talking about regular, standard bathroom scales designed for individuals to stand on. Not specialized models with a very high weight limit, either for individuals of very large size, livestock, trucks, etc. Or scientific scales that may perhaps not support more than 10 lbs, but with precision down to milligrams or even a fractions of milligrams.

To properly answer the original question - no weed here, just tobacco.

I like to use a wooden pipe when I can. A straight one, not a curved one or one made from corn cobs. But, it can take 15 minutes to go through a bowl. Maybe a little quicker if I don't fill it all the way.

So sometimes, I'm in enough of a hurry that cigarettes are just faster.

I rarely/almost never get cigars, partly due to cost but also that it can take the better part of an hour to finish one.

No, I'd advise against it.

Don't listen to the rabid anti-smokers who make outlandish claims. For example, there's nothing wrong with being around someone who's smoking. If you pour two fluid ounces of vodka into a glass, and leave it out for 48 hours (it'll evaporate), that's 48,000 times as many carcinogens released. That's the important thing to remember about toxicology; there's a non-zero threshold. Now they claim 7,000 chemicals. Remember when they used to claim 4,000? Going through 2-3 cigarettes a day, or a cigar is unlikely to make much of a difference either, and I saw studies about that.

But here's the problem. At a certain point, you will most likely come to need it. And you probably won't be able to stay at 2 a day. Ever heard the phrase pack-a-day? That's because that's a typical amount you'd eventually go through. It'll then be difficult if you'd rather not smoke anymore. You'll quickly learn to get cartons because they offer a discount.

You'd also need it even when it's not convenient, and the various indoor smoking restrictions make this more common. You'll be watching the clock and be almost hyper-aware of what time it is, thinking about what you'll be doing 1-2 hours from now, when if it's been 2 hours, you'd likely have 2 in a row. You will start to organize work tasks to ensure this will be possible. You'd also likely start lighting one first thing in the morning, chaining into the second one with your morning coffee, likely when you're in the bathroom. You'd also most likely have one right before you go to sleep as well. It also becomes an essential living expense.

The smell is pretty nice. Most folks are largely indifferent, but some folks may not think it smells very good, which is something to be aware of. There's also some of those who would be indifferent in day to day life, but might not want it at home and thus, may not want a relationship with a smoker.

There's a reason why virtually everyone who starts, does so as a pre-teen or teenager. Get a bit older than that, and the down sides to the restrictions are more apparent.

Also, while I did say that anti-smokers have made ridiculous claims, there are other things that aren't so ridiculous. Those who smoke, while less likely to develop Alzheimer's, are more likely to develop certain problems, including possible cancer of the lung or esophagus.

So yeah, I'd advise against it. Though, also surprised you wouldn't have tried it a few times in high school by now.

Know that whipped cream that comes in aerosol cans? Intended to be put on top of shakes, pancakes, waffles, whatever else?

It's delicious, but if you look at the label, the lack of calories is disappointing. A large can of Reddi-Whip has 1,110 calories, but it will take you a long time to consume the entire thing. You also can't spray the entire contents into your mouth all at once. Fortunately, there's a solution to this and it's even cheaper, too.

What you need:
- Heavy whipping cream
- Half & half
- Refined white cane sugar
- Straw (optional)

Recipe:

1) Pour 1 cup of half and half into a microwave safe cup. Heat it up in the microwave for 2 minutes.

2) Pour half a cup of sugar into the half & half. Stir it until the sugar is mixed in well. As it's heated up, it should mix in very quickly.

3) Pour in 1 cup of heavy cream. Stir lightly.

4) Enjoy 1,480 calories of sweet, fattening deliciousness, all in under 20 fl. oz. (it's about 18 fl. oz.)!

I find this tastes a bit like the whipped cream, only a little denser and without the propellant that makes whipped cream in a can fluffy and more voluminous.

I also like to save leftover 20 fl. oz. disposable paper cups (for example from Starbucks) for this purpose.

It's best consumed shortly before going to bed, perhaps after eating as much as possible. A straw is recommended since you can sip and drink it almost mindlessly without a second thought until you hear the bubbling (or however you describe that sound when you suck on a straw but there's no more liquid).

You can have it earlier in the day, but it may reduce feelings of hunger. But only you will know for sure.

Regardless of either the desired or actual results, there's something I have to point out.

For whatever reason, adding maltodextrin powder also seems to cause the fat to clump up, making it undrinkable. That of course means you end up not drinking it at all.

I can't remember the exact ratio I used, but I think it was something like 1/2 a cup maltodextrin powder, 1 cup water or translucent fruit juice drink (think something like lemonade), and 1 cup cream.

It also tasted pretty bad. Definitely didn't taste like lemon meringue pie.

It's possible that with a different ratio it would have been different.

I see what you're saying here, and perhaps that word can be phrased better. But what word might be better? "Extreme?"

Some folks get off on ridicule, and that's okay, but in my experience most don't.

There's also a question as to what's deemed extreme? Immobility? Or stages between immobility and not being able to function independently?

I've been here for a long time. Not once in that time, generally speaking, have folks ever denied certain realities. That above a certain size, independence may or may not be possible, or that limited or even no mobility is going to have some serious practical downsides.

At that point, most reasonable individuals would likely consider this extreme. Though again, it's not necessarily bad, especially if everyone involved is on board with it, and aware of both the pros and the cons such an arrangement will provide.

My vote would be to use "extreme" but I wonder what others' thoughts on this are.

Ha ha! You know as well as I do that Texas is a big place; second largest state by land area and second largest by population.

Might have wanted to mention you're in DFW.

Though I suppose Austin, Houston, Longview, Wichita Falls, College Station, Killeen/Waco, Corsicana, Midland/Odessa, etc. would be within weekend trip distance.

El Paso, San Antonio, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, or McAllen, probably can't do that in a weekend trip.

That doesn't sound very appetizing.