This is just my thought, but here's my best guess.

You keep coming back to it, right?

This tells me you don't hate the thought of gaining, but that you love it. What you seem to hate is that you do love it. But perhaps you still feel shame. That on some level, you aren't supposed to love it, but hate it. Then those feelings come bubbling up to the surface after the feeling of being turned on is gone.

This tells me that while it may take a long time, the easiest thing is to accept it. And the sooner you accept it, the better and the happier you'll be.

I often regret that it took me far too long to accept this. What if I accepted this earlier?

Another thing that helps is to realize the average American man aged 20-59 weighs around 202 lbs last I checked. And 250 isn't all that uncommon. 300+ may be less common but it's still common enough no one thinks twice. You'd have to gain a lot before you really stick out in public.

Hopefully something I said is helpful.

It really depends on your level of snacking and eating, more than anything. There's some who work in offices and never get fat.

Physical activity does burn calories, but not as many as you might think. It's why weight loss efforts often fail. Any calories you use up while say, walking a mile? One smaller cookie will replace all those calories and likely then some. Okay, maybe two cookies when you weigh over 300 lbs.

As you already know, some workers in retail are large, as well as others in some occupations that are often regarded as quite active. There's construction workers who are 250 or even more. Some nurses can also be over 250 and even over 300, in spite of a near inability to snack and being highly active.

I do know of a young lady who, probably after college, went from 220 to 290 in only a few months, just because her office had free pastries with no apparent upper limit (I don't think she ate them all, that's just mean). But a bagel with thickly slathered on cream cheese? Probably over 400, maybe even close to 500 calories. A blueberry and other muffins can easily be 400 calories, and that's before butter. Doughnuts, croissants, eclairs, etc. are probably gonna be at least 250, usually more. Then she ate at least one of these things probably 5, 6 times a day in addition to whatever meals. Easy to see how that can add up fairly fast.

When the virus hit, she was expected to telecommute. She was already an avid baker and her friends and family love what she makes, and the telecommuting just meant she cooked even more. I wouldn't be surprised if she's over 300 by now.

She also does not drink weight gain shakes as far as I know, but will probably have regular milkshakes just for the hell of it.

Anyway, I hope that story helps some.

I haven't quite been able to do that yet. But I always try to eat portions that are a good bit larger than what is probably typical.

I notice the OP is in South Africa, and I'm not sure if Wal-Mart has a presence there, so talking about comparable portions can be difficult, since I don't know what sizes items are sold in.

Wal-Mart sells these small slices of creme cakes in packs of 10. The most I've been able to eat in one sitting was 5 of the 10 slices in the package, which according to the nutrition facts was 950 calories, though it's important to note that I was sure I had other food at that time too, and I typically prefer to drink half & half in place of whole milk (320 vs. 150 calories per cup, and it's creamier) to help wash it down.

Maybe I have a different mentality, but I don't feel gluttonous as if I'm being naughty or doing something wrong. Instead, if I've been able to eat more (calories but also volume), instead I feel a sense of satisfaction. Much like how it sports or games, there's higher difficulty levels as your skill or ability increases. Also how I consider moving up to a larger clothing size to be an upgrade.

But, feeling stuffed can also feel disappointing, if on that day I wasn't able to get enough calories in. Like, if I feel stuffed but I barely, or didn't quite get to the 3K calorie mark. This is more likely to happen if I go pretty much all day without eating and then try to almost binge at the end of the day.

I do have a dream of eventually being able to eat an entire 8" cake (that's about 4" tall I think) in a single sitting, but I think I'm a ways away from that.

As of this writing, a BMI of 25.

I've been at a plateau for a good while now and it's been frustrating. Hopefully I can gain 15 lbs by the end of this year. I had hoped I'd have reached 200 or even 220 lbs by now.

(cont'd from previous post)

To recap, I mentioned these models:

- Chevrolet/GMC 1500/2500/3500 full-size light truck.
- Chevrolet Suburban/Tahoe / GMC Yukon
- Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana full-size van
- Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis/Lincoln Towncar
- Ford E-150/E-250/E-350 full-size van
- Toyota Sienna

I should point out that all these models are good on cargo/trunk capacity, and have an ability to tow a trailer for occasionally moving very large items. So there's this practical angle that's lost with most small size economy cars.

What To Stay Away From

I've heard that after '12, the odds are much higher that synthetic oil might be needed, but that's probably not the case for the models I mentioned. Worst part is, it costs twice as much to change the oil if it's synthetic. But, this is unlikely to be a big factor so, you probably shouldn't decide against a model for this sole reason.

I spoke highly of what were essentially Ford and GM "light truck"/full-size van models, as well as the Ford Panther platform. I can't however, say the same for their traditional car models (other than obviously, the Ford Panther platform models).

The last car GM made that I thought was worth a damn was the B-Body platform (Chevrolet Caprice, Buick Roadmaster, Cadillac Fleetwood) but they stopped making those after '96. Some speak highly of the Buick Park Avenue with the 3800 V6 engine, but GM stopped making that after '05, and you mentioned wanting '08 or newer. The Buick Lucerne was produced until '12, but some have the floor shifter while others have a column shifter, and you mentioned you didn't like the Impala so it might have the same problems.

Ford cars seem to be garbage too, except for the Panther platform.

Someone suggested minivans. Chrysler made the first vehicle that could be considered a minivan. However, everything Chrysler makes is unreliable, expensive trash. I've heard Fiat is the Chrysler of Europe, making unreliable trash for the European market. When I heard Chrysler merged with Fiat, I had to laugh. Crap times crap, is crap squared, which makes for a whole lot of crap. Curse Lee Iaccoca for coming up with a plan to save Chrysler in the 80s. But yeah, stay away from anything that Chrysler makes unless you like unreliable vehicles that will quit on you and because of repairs, keeps your wallet empty.

Also, I know you mentioned a budget of $10K which really isn't much to work with, so I doubt this is an issue, but obviously you want to stay away from any of the German brands too. There's a joke that goes like this:

What's more expensive than a new BMW? A used one! The repair costs for them will eat you alive.


Anyway, I hope something I said here is helpful. There's likely other things or factors I haven't thought of, but someone else can chime in.

It really depends on your needs, and what you most need to prioritize.

But anything you decide or go with, it's going to be give and take. Either way, I'll give you some suggestions to think about and consider, as well as strong suggestions about what you most want to avoid.

Suggestions To Consider

The limitations and restrictions you specified, I'm not gonna lie, it's going to make it hard. And anything I'm about to suggest, is most likely going to have lower than average fuel economy.

The good news is, unless you spend a lot of time on the road, the cost of fuel would actually make up a pretty small portion of the overall TCO (total cost of ownership). Insurance, repairs, and (for most) the loan payment would dwarf fuel cost, even if cost reaches $5/gal. or more. While fuel cost could be a consideration, it probably shouldn't be your primary consideration. If you want more details on this, just ask.

First, I'd only recommend something with a column shifter.

I always hated the floor shifter, because 1) such a terrible waste of space, 2) when parallel parking, the driver has to get in from outside on the side of traffic, as opposed to getting in from the passenger side and shuffling over (much safer), 3) for an automatic transmission there's *no* excuse for a floor shifter. I don't know what car designers were thinking. Okay, digression and rant over.

Second, for a sedan or wagon, a front bench seat is preferable. That's another thing car designers seem to have moved away from. Again, I don't know what they're thinking.

My first thought of course, is anything based on the Ford Panther platform, manufactured between '81 and '11. Sadly, Ford discontinued that model because in '12, stability control was mandated and I guess they didn't want to spend the R&D to add it. Panther platform models are Ford Crown Victoria (discontinued after '07, '11 for police models), the Mercury Grand Marquis LS (discontinued after '10), and the Lincoln Towncar (discontinued after '11).

All of these models have a front bench seat, a column shifter, and yes, a couch on wheels. Also, that powertrain platform can be very reliable and long lasting, if maintained properly. It's not uncommon to get 400K miles before the engine needs to be rebuilt. The 4.6L Ford Modular V8 would also have a bit of power, which is always helpful. Supposedly, it's rated for 2K lbs of towing capacity for towing a trailer, but you could probably tow more. Nice for renting a U-Haul trailer for a day when you need to move something big. They're also rear wheel drive, which is a simpler design than front wheel drive. Front wheel drive is usually favored for smaller cars since it's possible to cram more into a smaller space.

Other suggestions include the Ford Econoline/E-series full-size van, or the Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana full-size van.

After '15, Ford only produces the chassis-cab variant of the E-series, to be converted into shuttle buses, cube vans, et. al. but between '08 and '15, they have cargo and passenger van variants. The E-series has two bucket seats in the front row rather than a front bench seat, but it does NOT have a center console that's flush with the front seats, that could pinch if you're wide enough. They also have drink holders integrated into the dashboard, below the stereo, which of course are useful.

The Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana is also similar with the front bucket seats, no center console, and drink cup holders in the front dashboard, below the stereo.

In both cases, again if maintained properly, you can expect to get lots of miles before rebuilding the engine.

Another thought might be the Chevrolet Suburban/Tahoe, or the GMC Yukon, but watch out.. some of them have a center console flush with the two front bucket seats, rather than a bench seat for the front row. But any model you'd likely consider will have a column shifter, and it shares the same powertrain as the 1500 model of automatic transmission GM full-size light trucks, which can be quite reliable if taken care of.

Speaking of, certain models of the Ford F-series or Chevrolet 1500/2500/3500 full-size light trucks could work too. But watch out. Some Ford F-150 models since '11 went the route of the ^$&!!@$( center console and floor shifter despite being automatic. However, traditional pickup models do have a rear area that's exposed to the weather, which is a downside. An extended/crew cab model should mean you could put shopping bags in the second row, however. I fully admit to using the back seat in my sedan to store shopping bags, or the front passenger seat (I'm usually driving alone).

Someone mentioned minivans. If I had to get a "minivan" I'd probably only consider the Toyota Sienna. If Camry reliability is anything to go by, anyway. But I'm not sure what the interior might be like, particularly in the front row.

(cont'd in next post)

I can't say I ever have. That doesn't sound very appetizing. Where did you see this?

How would one even fry butter? Wouldn't the hot oil pretty much melt almost instantly? Whenever I cook mashed potatoes the butter melts very quickly.

On at least one occasion.

There's this bar I go to on occasion (before the virus, anyway), though I didn't go as often as I did to other places. However, I miss it now. It's a bit of a dive, karaoke most nights so the patrons provide their own entertainment, but the beer is cold and the drinks are fairly cheap for the area.

I also can't help but notice that nearly all the staff, and the patrons are overweight and obese, even more so than the local population on average. The patrons do tend to be somewhat less formal than I might like, probably like most Target patrons, but whatever. Also a bit more blue collar than I might prefer, unlike the other place which seems to be more a balanced mix of blue and white collar which I usually prefer, but I digress.

So one time, I saw this couple in their mid 20s there who didn't seem to be regulars, at least I haven't seen them before.

She was Latina, and kind of curvy but not super big. I would guess her BMI would have been right at 25, or slightly higher. But definitely not super skinny. Also came from Louisiana, or a recent ancestor did, but is it Texas.

But her boyfriend and possible fiance, that's a different story. He's white, and he was BIG. At least 250, but probably close to 300 lbs.

The conversation went all over the place, but a couple things really stuck out to me. First was just how food obsessed she seemed to be. Definitely the sort who probably makes large meals, and holidays aren't holidays unless there's a huge feast for everyone.

She was probably quite drunk, but even seemed slightly insistent because I guess she really likes seafood. Almost seemed offended that I had no opinion about it. But I come from the Midwest. While every supermarket does of course have seafood, it's not as big of a thing as it would be in Louisiana. I can't remember the last time I ever had any.

The second thing was about how they met, because I guess I asked about that. I guess when he was 18 or 19, many years before now, he started working at some place, and a coworker was an older family member of hers. At some point, this coworker introduced them. She recalls being skeptical, because he was white, but was glad she was talked into giving him a shot.

But she volunteered another bit of information.. that he was quite skinny at the time.

This means that in the last 5+ years they were together, it looks like he must have doubled his weight, or more. She clearly didn't mind, and I doubt he minded either.

Most likely, he has grown fat off of her cooking, and is probably still getting fatter.

I would guess they will get married, he'll keep eating big, and he'll never weigh under 300 lbs. ever again.


I didn't ask them about feederism, because it would have been awkward. Her mother/aunt/grandmother was with them too for whatever reason.

I wouldn't have known if they would have known what feederism even is.

But, that was the most obvious display and strong hint of feederism I've seen in person, to date.

Really? Hope she keeps it up, though I won't be surprised if she won't want to mix it in with something later.

Most folks don't take to drinking heavy cream straight because it can be kind of thick. So, they usually prefer to mix it into something.

I'll drink half & half like milk, though since that's pretty much all it is.. creamier milk. 10.5% fat vs. 3.5%.

One recipe I like is one bottle of Ensure Plus (or Equate Plus, Wal-Mart's knock off) to 1 cup heavy cream. That's 1,150 calories in only 16 fl. oz., more calories than any milkshake you can get at takeout, in a much smaller size. I think it's easier to drink too, but that's my opinion.

Though lately I've also been adding a cup of half & half to the recipe, so it's 1,470 calories in 24 fl. oz. I'm sure at some point I'll upgrade to a double serving of the original recipe; 2,300 calories in 32 fl. oz.