Wanttoeat:
It’s my birthday today! Who’s looking to get that birthday cake for me 🤗

Piggo88:
It's possible to shock your body into gaining by dramatically increasing your daily caloric intake above the norm and sustaining it for a few weeks. I challenged myself to a minimum 6,000 calorie daily diet for forty days, occasionally reaching 8 or 9k, and packed on 33 pounds. It was hard on my body, though. It was physically challenging to eat enough every day to hit that target, and I was consuming so much sugar it disrupted my ability to sleep.
I don't recommend it if you have health issues, but it is one way to get results.

BellyBoi24:
I used to go to the gym quite a lot, mainly for cardio and other high-intensity workouts, but now I’ve finally decided to stop resisting and start gaining, I’ve come up with a staged plan to prepare to get fat:

- Limit cardio and start lifting weights/dirty bulking so that I build a good frame on which to pile fat
- Gradually replace sessions with WG-oriented pursuit, e.g. replace one session a week with a stuffing instead
- Once I’m big enough, quit the gym entirely

Not only will this hopefully help me with my gain long term, there’s something very hot about slowing and consciously saying goodbye to my old fit self

Has anyone got experience of anything similar. How long did you keep up with the gym after you started your gain. What happened when you finally stopped?

SumoSized:
I wouldn't quit the gym entirely, there's still a ton of health benefits to going and it could save you from some heart problems in the future. Reduce it? Sure that'll reduce the number of calories you burn and help you gain faster. But don't cut it out entirely

Vidarr:
I'm actively gaining and I reached a weight of 135kg in 2 years, from a starting weight of 85kg.
But in the past months I got stuck at this weight without gaining.
I've been less active so my guesses are that I'm losing muscle and having fat simultaneously.
Does someone know how to continue to gain?

Olga01:
Munchies:
If you are discussing things in a religion's Holy Book, you are discussing the religion. Same with the Quran, the Vedas, the Tripitaka, or the Book of Shadows.

Oh, really. And if one says that mention of Israeli bears and chariots in Old Testament prove that there were bears and chariots in iron age Israel, it means discussing the religion. The Holy Book , I conclude, has a magic to make a religious matter of any thing mentioned in it and referred to in any context?

And if one says that mention of feet, pounds and inches in mathematician textbook of 19th century proves that these measures of length and weight were in usage at this time, it means discussing mathematics, because mathematician textbook makes mathematics of all things mentioned in it. Etc.

In any case, no one is obliged to recognize any scripture of any religion to be really 'Holy'. It depends on his personal faith.

Munchies:
Hi. I'm Christian. What is your point?

It's called basic human decency. If something is not your religion, don't be rude about it - especially when it is clear that you do not understand the ins and outs of it.

I don't care if you are not Christian. I don't care if you have critiques of my faith. I do care if you are boldly making claims on things without understanding the text. Now knock it off.

Bigdoug:
Not every discussion or mention of a passage from a “holy book” is about religion or religious interpretation. Especially the OT has been used frequently as a reference to the history and culture of the Middle East and its tribes. It is also a historical text existing in historical context! I found the mention of the ancient SSBBWs interesting and it was news to me. So I learned something. What was not new to me was the abysmal, hypocritical and mysoginistic treatment of these women at the hands of religious fanatics, hence my dislike of religion!

Morbidly A Beast:
saw a similar post on Reddit
www.reddit.com/r/WeightGainTalk/comments/1jqxq5l/i_23m_saw_my_mom_on_feabie_help/

Seems fake to me. The probability on that seems rather low givin how few feedists there are.

Olga01:
Munchies:
If you are discussing things in a religion's Holy Book, you are discussing the religion. Same with the Quran, the Vedas, the Tripitaka, or the Book of Shadows.

Oh, really. And if one says that mention of Israeli bears and chariots in Old Testament prove that there were bears and chariots in iron age Israel, it means discussing the religion. The Holy Book , I conclude, has a magic to make a religious matter of any thing mentioned in it and referred to in any context?

And if one says that mention of feet, pounds and inches in mathematician textbook of 19th century proves that these measures of length and weight were in usage at this time, it means discussing mathematics, because mathematician textbook makes mathematics of all things mentioned in it. Etc.

In any case, no one is obliged to recognize any scripture of any religion to be really 'Holy'. It depends on his personal faith.

.

And yes, saying "man" is obsolete by several centuries.

Olga01:
I definitely think that 1962 was not several centuries ago
E.g.
archive.org/details/manhisdestinying0000sgfb
This book by a pious specialist in religions it's not about males, it's about mankind / human beings.

Olga01:
Once more, I'm not dealing with religion. If we see in Bible mention of bears in Israel (I mean the story how two bears killed 42 children who were mocking the prophet Elisha,
"there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them" ), it's just as if any other ancient source mentions bears in Israel. It just gives us info about geographical distribution of bears in those times, independently of the religious matters. The religious or moral meaning of this story is quite another thing.

Same here. From this Amos prophecy we learn about fat fashion in Israel of 8th century BC. It is not about religion. It is his attitude to this fashion and these women that is about his ideas, including religious ones, but I didn't discuss this attitude. I quoted list of those details about these women that one can derive from his text as source.

I apologize for the fact I used word man, but I want to emphasize that I didn't meant "male", I just meant any person. Maybe it's obsolete practice.

Olga01:
1. I'm not dealing with religion. I quoted analysis of Old Testament text just as one of many ancient texts,

2. Losch, whose comments I have presented, is religious man , religious teacher and even priest himself. The scholars, whose comments I have presented, are secular scholars. But are they think about the women from this text the same that Losch thinks .

Different opinions exist only on the precise meaning of threats to these women. I quoted some explanations with arguments (not my ones) in favor of them. If you have other plausible interpretations of this meaning, you are strongly welcomed to tell them, just as any other men who has any opinion on this point.