As mentioned in the web site rules, English is the required language on FF.

Please be assured this is nothing personal. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade.

Locking this thread.

I keep hearing about cake mix bloats / shakes, but what's the recipe? How do I make one?

Is it something I can have right before bed? 8-10 hours sounds a bit long.

Would it help me increase my appetite? I want to be able to do things like eat an entire large pizza or two triple burgers (at Whataburger a triple has 3/4 of a pound of beef) in a sitting. Of course I hope it helps add weight and thickness. I also want to be able to occasionally drink an entire quart of heavy cream in one go like it's almost nothing.

So many questions!

At this time I can't think of an actual mattress that would be good for this, so I will leave that question for someone else. But consider bed frames.

However, I recall an old story my mother told me that a coworker of hers told her.

This lady was over 400 lbs, and so was her boyfriend/husband (I don't remember which but it's not important for this story). This was also in the early 80s, where everyone on average was much thinner. Too thin in fact, but that's a different topic. I guess that nearly 900 lbs of fleshy softness, and all the shaking while doing the nasty was just too much. So one night when doing it, their bed frame broke and it caused a loud crash. It was hard to contain myself, especially since it's my mother who passed that story on.

Point is, either do without a bed frame, or make sure it's extra reinforced or sufficiently strong enough. Not sure if today's bed frames might be stronger, but they could be.

Or go ahead with a weak bed frame. If it broke under the combined weight of myself and a future girlfriend, I would likely be turned on and thrilled.

Aside from the very high cost of calories for the dollar, I don't recommend it. I also tried Serious Mass, but the others are likely the same story.

The powder doesn't seem to mix well. Maybe it mixes better with water or skim milk, as is suggested with many of them.

But that's no way to pack on pounds. I tried to mix Serious Mass with half & half (not even any heavy cream) and it's SO thick it's almost undrinkable. It's difficult to suck it through a straw. I will not be buying it again. So, save your money.

But here's a better idea of what to use - nutritional shakes. Even Ensure Plus and Boot VHC, as expensive as they are, are a better value than those gainer powders.

But you know, both Kroger (Fortify Plus) and Wal-Mart (Equate Plus) have a store brand equivalent with such as many calories and equivalent portions of the vitamins. I haven't tried proper Ensure Plus, but the Equate Plus is very good, at least the chocolate flavor is.

The consistency seems to be about as thick as chocolate milk, except it tastes even sweeter. At 350 calories per 8 fl. oz., it even beats half & half on calorie density, though not on price. I prefer to use it as a flavoring agent for cream, which is quite thick and isn't always the best taste on it's own.

If you mix one bottle of this stuff (8 fl. oz.) with an equal part of heavy cream, you get something that tastes like a melted milkshake but has considerably more calories. 1,150 yummy, delicious calories in only a pint of volume.

It's nice for drinking while playing video games, where you will hopefully lose all track until you realize the cup is empty and it's time for another serving.

I have noticed the OP is in the UK, so I'm not sure what options there will be regarding nutritional shakes, or the pricing. But it's something to look at, the next time you go shopping for food. In the U.S. at least, this stuff is usually located near the pharmacy and in the case of Wal-Mart, it's even in the same aisle as the gainer powders.

I'll throw my hat into the ring too, and apply.

I've been around here long enough my member ID number is only 4 digits in length, and I've been here over 13 years.

I've also lurked for so long, I still remember finding the Dimension's Weight Room online in the late 90s and even Fat Nat's. Thus, I have a really good idea what it's all about. It has fascinated me for what seems like since ever.

In the past I've been here on and off, though I've taken a considerably more active role lately, especially over the last couple/few years or so.

I have also attempted to be helpful when I can, whenever I do post. Hopefully others have found my posts helpful.

While it's true I've never held a moderating role in any online feederism community before (barring owning a somewhat slow Kik group), having been online for nearly 25 years I have experience having been moderator, operator, administrator, etc. on other online communities. While a somewhat different animal, I'm big on IRC and have been in situations where I'm expected to maintain order.

Though, perhaps the most important thing is to know when not to use the tools as when to use them. Excluding obvious spam bots, it's always a sad day to ban someone, temporarily or permanently, and to me is considered a last resort. I have a pretty good track record of being able to deescalate, which to me is the most ideal outcome.

I have enjoyed my time here very much, or else I wouldn't keep coming back. It also seems the management shares highly similar views as I do on what makes an inclusive community. It doesn't at all feel like there's an "insider" "good ole boys" club, which makes for a very toxic community at some places that shall remain unnamed. This might be a nice way for me to give something back to the community.

It's not a big deal either way of course. I'll keep coming back whether I'm granted this role or not. I do log in most days, and it's occasionally frustrating to see spam bot threads and and postings. It would be nice if I could do something about it directly.

Have a good day, stay safe, well fed, and happy summer!

There's only one way to really find out!

While diet can have some effect on what the end result will be, I think it's mostly determined by genetics. Do you have any blood relatives who are that weight or larger? That might give you an idea. Same sex, ideally. The closer the relation, the better the approximation. A brother, if you have one, or your father, or an uncle. Failing that, a cousin.

Whether 20 lbs is even noticeable, depends on your starting weight and your height. The thinner you are before gaining, it's likely to be more noticeable since it would be a larger percentage. My personal experience though, it's probably not that noticeable.

When I went from 125 to 140, even 145, I suppose it's possible some noticed, but no one said anything. When I was 150, I got a comment about my gut, but that shirt really was too tight and small. I'm saving it in case I want to attempt a button popping video later. I'm now in the mid 160s, and so far no one has said anything, even though I'm technically overweight now. I wonder if anyone will notice whenever I reach 180, but I kind of doubt it.

You also have to remember the larger you get, the more weight it takes each time to add another inch to your waistline, thighs, etc.

Then again, I have yet to cross into truly heavy territory. I suspect it would take a LOT of weight before anyone local calls me properly fat. It hasn't been the easiest for me but it's my hope that as I gain, more weight will come on even easier.

Being a man, I may have an easier time, though it's not entirely easy.

I think women might just have a harder time, since it appears there's more variance between sizing tables/charts and their corresponding measurements.

It's not fair or reasonable, but just what I've noticed. For example, a size 20 at NY & Co. is a 14 at Torrid for bottoms (38" waist, 47" butt) whereas a size 20 at NY & Co. is a 16 at Torrid (44-46" boobs), though in both cases it's still 2XL/1X.

It's even worse if some brands aren't even consistent with their own sizing charts.

For men's bottoms at least, there seems to be consistency. Advertised waist size + 2" = real waste size, which is at least consistent. Except for Wrangler brand jeans, where advertised really does seem to be what it really is.

S, M, L, XL also seems consistent regarding chest or waist measurement. L always seems to be 36-38" waist, and a 42-44" chest, for instance.

Inseam, outseam, or sleeve length measurement always seems to be whatever the numbers say, at least.

Perhaps there should be a law that says all mass produced (not bespoke) clothing on or after I don't know, December 1st, 2020 and sold in the U.S. needs to follow a consistent sizing chart, determined by the NIST Office of Weights & Measures. Same for the equivalent offices in the UK, EU, and so on.

Alternatively, if inch measurements are used rather than size numbers, every measurement much be consistent even for waist.

And why not? It's the same office that carries the official definition of what an inch, or a pound is.

Are you sure you didn't miss also looking at serving size?

In the U.S., for heavy cream the label typically says 50 calories a serving. But a "serving" is only 1 tablespoon, or half a fluid ounce. Whereas for half & half, it says 40 calories per serving, which while that's not much below 50, is for 2 tablespoons, or 1 fluid ounce. So to really compare apples to apples, you have to convert serving sizes, proportionally.

Thus, 100 calories per fluid ounce of heavy cream (36%) vs. half & half which is 40 per fluid ounce (10.5%).

I kind of wish we had double cream that was runny, as it would be easier to either drink or mix into shakes.

The U.S. does have something called "manufacturing cream" which is 40%, and 60 calories per tablespoon, or 120 calories per fluid ounce. But almost no one sells it. Wish I knew where to get some.

For whatever reason, if I make a post with multiple URLs, without using BBCode, the 2nd and subsequent links in the post will have the same link text as the first link, but if you hover over any of the links, it will show that if clicked, it would lead to the correct, intended URL.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the CMS that FF utilizes, nor am I familiar with the code that is used to convert text URLs into clickable hyperlinks. So, I'm unable to provide specific assistance.

However, it's clear there's a coding logic error somewhere, where instead of using the text of the subsequent URLs, it's instead reusing the text from the first link. That's the only thought or suggestion I really have to potentially resolve this problem.

I know, logic errors are the worst. At least syntax errors show up during compiling or executing, as it does in the case of PHP.

Depends on how you define "rich," and how you define fat.

But probably not. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble.

If the definition is at least $100K-$150K USD / yr., it's not that hard to find such individuals who are plus size.

In 2019, the 10th percentile for individual income, where 10% get more and 90% get less, is $116,250 / yr., but that's a nationwide figure. In San Francisco for example, that's pitiful.

dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/

Either way, it's a good ballpark figure to define "rich," in absence of a definition from you.


You have also failed to define "fat." Since you have also failed to provide such a definition, I will make one up. The CDC defines "severe obesity" to be a BMI of 40+, and in 2018 the rate was 9.2%.

dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/

Assuming a perfectly even distribution, which is hardly the case... 9.2% * 10% = 0.92%. This suggests under 1% of the American population both has an income above $116,250 / yr. and a BMI that exceeds 40.

In 2018, there were about 240,350,000 Americans in all age groups over the age of 21.

dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/

That leaves, nationwide, only about 2.2 million such Americans, nationwide. However, the number is likely even lower. Know how I said that assumes an even distribution? Because that's not how it works.

In fact, the numbers are likely not even half that. I have the impression that an estimate of 1 million, nationwide, would be an optimistically high estimate.


It's a harsh truth that there's some degree of an inverse relationship between severe obesity, and educational attainment (which is typically directly correlated with income and wealth), income, and wealth.

Clothing brands that are more expensive, are likely to top out at size 18-20 for women, and 44" waist / XL shirt / 18.5" neck. This is not by mistake. They must have determined market demand is minimal, and the farther away from the median, the steeper the drop in even potential market size. Though with that degree of wealth, such individuals could likely easily bear the cost of custom clothing.

When I was attending business school for an MBA, I think I only had one classmate, in one class, who was clearly well above 350 lbs. Those who were over 200 lbs were somewhat common, but in a minority. The students were definitely thinner than the average population as a while.

A few professors were over 200, but none were over 350.

This was all in the Midwest were obesity rates are slightly or somewhat above the national average.

Now, not everyone who has a large income has a Master's or Ph.D., so what about those with lower educational attainment but have the income and wealth anyway?

But, after a certain point, regardless of educational attainment, image is important. Having a plus size wife who weighs over 200 lbs is sufficiently mainstream in that world, as is being plus size yourself (200-250).

But super size (350+) doesn't fit that image, at least not yet, and could make business or work relationships hard.

In the world of higher income, the pressure to remain thin or fit continues to persist. Partly it's due to the slow pace that high fashion changes to adapt to society. It's likely also part to there being fewer excuses available. The money means easier access to exercising, yoga studios, different types of food, plastic surgery, and scheduling flexibility to let this all happen.

Awhile back, I read about a 450 lb man who simply wasn't being promoted, despite being qualified for it. But when he dropped to about 225-250, he was finally promoted and got the larger salary.

In short, image is likely everything for those of us with more money, and the standards have been slower to change.

At least, these are the observations I've made when looking at, observing the very wealthy suburbs nearby, or when I might go shopping in one of them.

Even just trying to get a new job, image seems like it's everything. But I don't anticipate weighing over 300 lbs, where I expect image problems to occur.