Some folks mentioned a couple days, others have mentioned delayed gain effects a couple weeks later, but of course, YMMV. Think it depends on some other things, too. Either way, the calories need to go somewhere.

I assume the cream is in addition to your normal overeating, since the body still needs various nutrients and vitamins.

There's also a little something called "thermic effect" or basically the energy needed to digest and process the food. Fat is eventually/usually the most efficient, at about 3% if I recall correctly, and pretty much all the calories in cream is from fat, so drinking cream is basically drinking the weight on. It's the closest thing to a magic fat potion as you're going to get.

Still, don't think about thermic effect too much, just have fun with what you're eating and as long as you overeat enough, you'll gain.

Some have reported better results if eating something of your preference that's sweet either right before, during, or in the cream. For example, mixing a pint of cream with 2 packets of hot chocolate powder. Or having a late night dessert at about the same time or right before the cream.

I did briefly browse through some other posts you made. It can be hard to get used to the cream so if you think about having more, take it easy and only try a little more. Go back to the previous amount if you feel out of sorts, maybe try again later.

I don't want to say this will never happen, but there's a reason this is unlikely to happen again, primarily as a function of cost, because of new technical capabilities and expectations.

These arguments are listed from weak to strong.

Old televisions had lower resolutions than newer ones do, so the drawings were probably easier to make, as imperfections were probably less visible. Higher resolutions probably mean creating larger drawings. Larger drawings take exponentially more effort to create. If you're talking about old style watercolor paint for each drawing, any mistake means starting over. Even professionals can make mistakes.

TVs also used to be 24 frames per second, then 30. Old cartoons, every single frame had to be drawn by hand. Now, 60 is expected, with some content being 120. If you're expecting 60 FPS content, it would take twice as long as to produce the drawings and make the film. Same chronological time? Probably even more cost for overtime and very long workdays to make it happen.

This is probably why later cartoons usually have a more detailed static background with only the characters themselves, and objects they will interact with soon, are animated, to reduce costs or time to release.

Eventually, computer technology has gotten both cheap and fast enough for more CGI. I can almost guarantee that one graphic artist, with his very high powered PC, could do the work of I don't know how many full-time cartoonists in terms of frames produced. It's just cheaper.

For a long time, films had special effects whereas TV shows didn't, due to computer cost and speed, but now TV shows have them too, even for series where episodes are released weekly.

Now I'll admit, it's a different aesthetic, and it feels differently. This is why paper books (and even physical newspapers) still exist when e-books/PDFs/web sites are cheaper, why some folks still ride horses (albeit more for sport and recreation, and not for practical day to day usage) when motor vehicles are better in every way. Hell, why some folks will sometimes hand write letters when it's quicker to type and sign them. There's many more examples.

But, it just costs more to produce. Going forward, I don't expect many new ones to be released. The ones that are, I expect would come out of smaller, more independent studios for the more artistic aspect. I would be surprised if Disney and the like were to make any new ones.

Can't say I've ever experienced that.

Some have mentioned a delayed weight gain effect.

Only real side effects I've noticed are slightly larger arms, thicker thighs and calves, a larger butt, and a slightly soft starter belly that didn't seem to be there before.

Another side effect is shortly after the cream, if I drink too much of it at one time, I might feel a little drowsy so it's best to do that before going to sleep, but it sounds like you're doing that anyway.

These are the only effects I've experienced lately that I think I can really attribute directly to cream.

Between that and your prior post mentioning occupations, I'm surprised.

The industries with the highest percentages and those occupations are more likely to be active, no?

Sure, physical activity may not burn a lot of calories but I doubt someone with an active job would have an easy ability to snack on the job, which would limit the amount you can eat.

Not sure how many opportunities an ER nurse would have to snack, for example.

The lower percentage in the industries of finance, insurance, or professional services is also curious. Seems like most of the work those industries provide would be desk jobs where you'd plop down your expanding gut and widening ass into a desk chair all day, typing at a computer while you snack on doughnuts, candy, cookies, and drink coffee all day.

But, there's probably something I'm missing.

While I think there's some truth to this, not always.

There's skinny people with almost no energy, from eating little to almost nothing. Metabolism is rock bottom, each calorie is precious, body goes into survival mode, and there's not much energy to do much else. The most extreme form of this is anorexia, which would ultimately result in death when there just no calories left to burn and the body shuts down from starvation.

On the other hand, I do at times see large women who can really move. I've also noticed that volleyball and soccer players have a tendency to be chunky; football players too. When I was a kid and teen, I thought most of the female soccer and volleyball players (who tended to be thicker) were cuter than most of the cheerleaders (who tended to be thinner). There were plump cheerleaders but they were uncommon. Those soccer and volleyball players had more energy than most folks, despite the additional weight.

So, I don't think it's necessarily that simple.

You don't have a job? And you have kids, in this day and age, in California of all places? Wow.

Anyway, I don't know what you mean by eating unhealthily, but I think you could make some changes and still gain. In fact, you probably should, especially since you have kids and likely a much greater share of chore responsibilities since you aren't working a paid job.

One is that I might recommend trying to eat some different food. Even salad can be loaded with calories, if you add enough dressing or add chicken to it. You also need protein, and what store doesn't have fatty cuts of meat. I do wonder what you cook for dinner, since presumably the others don't experience a similar problem.

Here's another idea, which may seem counter-intuitive until I explain it a little more; some exercise. I don't mean marathons, but maybe some light walking; just get out of the house a little bit. Or lift some weights.. that might help build some muscle to help support your future increased weight. Don't worry about whether this physical activity will burn many calories. It won't, and you'll see this if you look up some calorie burn estimates. If you walk a mile but eat another cookie, the cookie would likely more than make up for the calories burned from the walk. Light exercise can also have the effect of making you hungrier, so you may even end up eating even more than you would have. This means more of a gain, and you should feel like you have some more energy. This effect on hunger is probably one of many reasons why weight loss efforts fail.

I don't know if you drink any cream-based weight gain shakes, but if you do, keep those in the evening, shortly before going to sleep. For some folks it has the effect of creating drowsiness. It may also make you feel full for longer, making you eat less. So you probably don't want to drink any of these in the morning.

I hope you find some of these ideas useful.

Was it a much older building? Seems like almost everything was built narrower then.

I just realized I haven't properly replied to this thread.

In my very unscientific observation, almost every time I see a couple with a large woman, the man is large too.

You do see significant size contrast couples on occasion, but that seems uncommon. If anything (again, unscientific) I think the large man/skinny or thin woman couple is more common than the opposite, where she's large and he's skinny or thin.

This is unlikely to do with physical preference in all cases. It does tie into the observation that in general, women seem less focused on physical appearance and are more interested in connecting emotionally, whether the personalities fit, and empathy. Although in both cases there always seems to be a mysterious 'X' factor that isn't well understood, it's just there or not and you just know it.

When both are large, both are likely to face similar challenges in day to day life, both likely enjoy eating, the empathy thing.

If you want a fat woman, it would seem that large men have the advantage. So if you are really determined, it would seem that you should pick up that fork, eat more pasta alfredo, give in to those triple burgers, slather on the butter and mayonnaise, eat more of those large, decadent desserts, drink half and half like milk, or suck down pints of heavy cream before bed.

But, this is just my unscientific observation. I have only lived in the U.S., and only in three distinctly different locales. I'm also talking about what I've seen in public, in real life. The vast majority of these folks are unlikely to be involved with feederism, although I suspect there may be some out there who do it and aren't aware there's a term for it, or that there could possibly be others into this sort of thing either. If you're looking for someone who will stick a funnel into your mouth and pour a gallon of weight gain shake down your throat while rubbing your belly, you're probably going to be out of luck. But you shouldn't have too hard of a time finding a BBW who loves food and cooking.

Pizza can be very hit and miss.

Sometimes there's cheaper pizza that isn't half bad for the expense.

Cost is not a guarantee that it will be great. I remember one time, I had a "large" pizza which I believe was 14" or 16" from a local joint, that was $25. It was so bad that eating half of it over two days was a trial, and I tried to force myself to eat it, it was so bad. I couldn't take it anymore and had to throw out the rest of it.

Pizza Hut and Papa John's would have been better, and cheaper. Even Dominos would have been better.

There's also how I would expect most male mutual gainers to be fine with a woman who's gaining for herself, or even if she's just large.

Also, most feedees can't reasonably or realistically expect her future boyfriend or husband to not eventually get fat, if he isn't already. Most that I've talked to, admit and expect this.

Also, those who tend to be good at cooking tend to be overweight or even obese.

I've also noticed that in general, women usually seem to be less focused on appearance than men are, so perhaps there's many who may not explicitly want her boyfriend or husband to gain weight, but at the same time don't mind.

Hopefully I'm making sense here.