Off-Topic

jaffacakesyum

corked wrote: »

5 years ago I saw a discusting picture of myself - over weight and in poor fitness. So took things serious and lost almost 4 stone. Did 2 marathons and have a huge collection of medals from races.

Over the past 18 months I have managed to put on 1.5stone and saw a not so nice picture of myself with a double chin!

So the focus is now back on with a 5km race tomorrow. And will post here weekly on how it's going.... Just to keep me on track. The goal is to loose 1 stone by October but would be delighted to loose the other .5 with it.

Current weight: 93kg
Current Bmi:29 (normal is 25)

Best of luck with it!! The fact you did 2 marathons before is a huge achievement. I wouldn't be able to do one! And I'm really into fitness, work out quite a lot.

MYOB wrote: »

BMI is absolute and utter bollox, seeing as its a two dimensional calculation applied to a 3D figure, and also the "normal" range (20-25) was determined during an era of what is now accepted to be mass malnutrition.

It only came back to popularity due to thrashy womens magazines in the last decade.

I really, really wouldn't focus on it.

Um no, BMI is the gold standard in terms of measuring weight. The vast majority of the time it is an accurate determinent of healthy and unhealthy weights. It's used in all the scientific papers. Of course, it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle, so if you're a big huge bodybuilder you're going to have an abnormal BMI even though you're not fat. In those cases, other measurements can be used.

Also to say that a BMI of 20-25 is malnutrition is shocking :eek:

L1011

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Um no, BMI is the gold standard in terms of measuring weight. The vast majority of the time it is an accurate determinent of healthy and unhealthy weights. It's used in all the scientific papers. Of course, it doesn't distinguish between fat and muscle, so if you're a big huge bodybuilder you're going to have an abnormal BMI even though you're not fat. In those cases, other measurements can be used.

No, really, its not the gold standard nor is it commonly used in actual scientific papers. It was completely discredited until it got latched on to a few years ago by the dieting industry. If you find it being used in scientific papers, take a look at who's making them. Roche seem to love sponsoring research on it, for instance - take a look at their product list.

The fat/muscle issue is only a sideshow to a major problem that it assumes that everyone is exactly the same structural (skeletal) width and depth. There's also issues with the way the calculation works which mean its unreliable for taller people regardless of everything else.

Its not even reliable as a good guess, let alone people being tricked in to thinking it means something concrete. Wouldn't be as easy to scare people without it now would it.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Also to say that a BMI of 20-25 is malnutrition is shocking :eek:

I didn't say that, I said that the scale was determined in era of mass malnutrition. We're also told to apply the same scale to effectively the entire Western world (there are different allegedly 'normal' bands for some ethnicities, but that's about it).

A body fat calculation is the actual gold standard - pity the kit isn't cheap.

jaffacakesyum

MYOB wrote: »

No, really, its not the gold standard nor is it commonly used in actual scientific papers. It was completely discredited until it got latched on to a few years ago by the dieting industry. If you find it being used in scientific papers, take a look at who's making them. Roche seem to love sponsoring research on it, for instance - take a look at their product list.

The fat/muscle issue is only a sideshow to a major problem that it assumes that everyone is exactly the same structural (skeletal) width and depth. There's also issues with the way the calculation works which mean its unreliable for taller people regardless of everything else.

Its not even reliable as a good guess, let alone people being tricked in to thinking it means something concrete. Wouldn't be as easy to scare people without it now would it.

BMI is in no way a concrete measure, as I already said about muscle mass and indeed I take your point on about skeletal structure. However, skeletal width and depth is unlikely in my personal opinion to offshoot BMI scores significantly although I'm unaware of any studies. In fact, BMI is likely to underdiagnose rather than overdiagnose fat mass http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20125098

One of the problems is BMI cannot measure visceral fat. Another issue is that it does not distinguish between where the fat is distributed. So while, a person with high BMI is still going to be unhealthy, they may have fat distributed in the upper limbs, trunk and lower limbs rather than their waist, which isn't as bad as abdominal obesity is more correlated with cardiovascular risks.

Anywway, I digress. BMI has been shown to be an accurate measurement tool in many studies. It's highly, but not perfectly correlated with body fat %. The fact you question which scientific journals would use BMI is odd. I'm talking peer-reviewed medical journals here, not Cosmo.

In addition, look up any clinical guidelines and they will say BMI is the recommended tool. It has its limitations, but it's the most accurate and practical tool available. American College of Physicians, American College of Preventative Measurement, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, NHS guidelines etc.

I didn't say that, I said that the scale was determined in era of mass malnutrition. We're also told to apply the same scale to effectively the entire Western world (there are different allegedly 'normal' bands for some ethnicities, but that's about it).

A body fat calculation is the actual gold standard - pity the kit isn't cheap.

Apologies, I misread you. And yes, of course there are many studies out there which give you different bands for different ethnicities and of course for children there's going to be different percentiles but they're out there if you'd like to research them.

Actually, cadaver studies are the only gold standard for measuring body composition. I referred to BMI as the gold standard purely because we're obviously not talking cadavers here :pac: Technically there is no universal agreed gold standard but, as I mentioned above the most recommended tool is BMI and then in specific populations there'll be add ons to that.

L1011

There isn't a reckoning tool with as many exceptions, clarifications and "this isn't particularly accurate for..." clauses that is in such common use or with as much emphasis placed on it for anything else in medicine, though. People have zero reason to get obsessed over BMI.

jaffacakesyum

MYOB wrote: »

There isn't a reckoning tool with as many exceptions, clarifications and "this isn't particularly accurate for..." clauses that is in such common use or with as much emphasis placed on it for anything else in medicine, though. People have zero reason to get obsessed over BMI.

Can you present scientific evidence for a clinically more practical reliable and accurate tool to measure body fat?

And actually, I could present lots of tools in medicine that have clauses. No tool is going to be 100% perfect, but that's for another debate.

I'm not being smart, nor trying to claim people should be 'obsessed over BMI'. I'm just discounting your claim that "BMI is bollix". It's the best tool we have at the moment. And for people who are trying to lose weight it's an easy tool for them to use, which can be great motivation. Nobodys going to have body fat % machines in their house.

To be honest I couldn't care less what people look like (if I'm not interested in them sexually :pac:) but I do care about people's health. So when I see people say "BMI is bollix" it's akin to "ah the risks of smoking are bollix, don't worry about it".

1ZRed

Well in fairness basing everything on BMI is bollox. It's a great guideline, but far from paramount when it comes to health. Anyone who lifts weights or works out shouldn't bother with it, it is completely inaccurate when it doesn't factor in muscle mass.

You can also be within what is deemed "healthy" or ideal on the BMI scale yet do not exercise and live a very sedentary lifestyle without even eating all that healthily either. You can be the type of person who appears thin enough to be ideal, but have huge deposits of visceral fat lining your internal organs. They are referred to as a "toffee" - thin on the outside, soft and gooey on the inside.

This visceral fat is actually far more harmful to you than fat deposits nearer the surface of your skin and have a direct link to increased type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

By making people believe that BMI is of such huge importance to where they think that just because they are within the ideal zone that they are healthy is actually a bad thing and could deceive people into thinking they are more healthy then what they actually are.

BMI should be a rough guideline but should coupled with exercise targets to ensure you're getting enough exercise to maintain good health, that's what's most important.

I know I eat very clean and healthily and I exercise regularly, yet I'd probably be considered overweight on the BMI scale for my height which is bollocks.

L1011

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

So when I see people say "BMI is bollix" it's akin to "ah the risks of smoking are bollix, don't worry about it".

That's taking a bit of a leap, tbh.

BMI is a very poor quality tool that can lead people to believe they're in perfect health when they're not or cause people to worry hugely for no reason. How you can even try and compare that to what you did astounds me.

jaffacakesyum

1ZRed wrote: »

Well in fairness basing everything on BMI is bollox. It's a great guideline, but far from paramount when it comes to health. Anyone who lifts weights or works out shouldn't bother with it, it is completely inaccurate when it doesn't factor in muscle mass.

You can also be within what is deemed "healthy" or ideal on the BMI scale yet do not exercise and live a very sedentary lifestyle without even eating all that healthily either. You can be the type of person who appears thin enough to be ideal, but have huge deposits of visceral fat lining your internal organs. They are referred to as a "toffee" - thin on the outside, soft and gooey on the inside.

This visceral fat is actually far more harmful to you than fat deposits nearer the surface of your skin and have a direct link to increased type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

By making people believe that BMI is of such huge importance to where they think that just because they are within the ideal zone that they are healthy is actually a bad thing and could deceive people into thinking they are more healthy then what they actually are.

BMI should be a rough guideline but should coupled with exercise targets to ensure you're getting enough exercise to maintain good health, that's what's most important.

I know I eat very clean and healthily and I exercise regularly, yet I'd probably be considered overweight on the BMI scale for my height which is bollocks.

Absolutely and they're all points I've addressed already. My point is that BMI is not necessarily an accurate measurement of health (there is no one accurate tool for that), but is in general an accurate measurement to class your weight as underweight, normal, overweight or obese. A rugby player is hardly going to use BMI as a measurement of health - I don't think anybody who's sporty or goes to the gym and has a lot of muscle mass even believe that BMI is an important measure for them; in my experience people are well educated about this.

I've also already alluded to the visceral fat which is definitely more important than other fat. Hence why you use BMI in conjunction with other measurements.

My issue is with people who are telling others (who are obviously trying to lose weight and who know they need to and are trying to be healthier) to completely ignore their BMI as it's "utter bollix". That is dangerous in my opinion. It's like the women who go on about how society wants them to be thin and they're "big and beautiful". Nobody's saying you have to be a size 6 model, in fact that's unhealthy. But promoting obesity because it's "big and beautiful" really irks me. Like I said earlier, I couldn't give a toss what people look like, it's the massive health risks they are exposing themselves to.

MYOB wrote: »

That's taking a bit of a leap, tbh.

BMI is a very poor quality tool that can lead people to believe they're in perfect health when they're not or cause people to worry hugely for no reason. How you can even try and compare that to what you did astounds me.

It's not a poor quality tool. Studies show it correlates with body fat %. Apart from the obvious muscle mass issue (which is obvious even to the average Joe, it's not something that needs careful analysis, you can tell who is muscly and who is overweight just by looking at them usually), it actually sometimes underdiagnoses obesity. So it's accurate in terms of if it classes someone as overweight 99%* of the time, it correctly does so. But it may underdiagnose obesity in that somebody may be classified as overweight rather than obese according to the BMI scales, when they are actually obese.

Somebody who is an abnormal BMI is very unlikely to be in perfect health as you put it (apart from the big rugby players which I've said since post 1 that it does not accurately classify - nobody believes it to). That's why I'm comparing it to smoking. You're alluding that in the majority of cases an abnormal BMI is to be ignored because it's unlikely to be accurate and it doesn't mean they're unhealthy. I'm arguing against that based on scientific evidence. So if someone was coming on here saying smoking isn't as bad for your health as people would have you believe, I'd be arguing against that, based on scientific evidence as well.

L1011

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Studies show it correlates with body fat %.

To a very rough degree, and with decreasing accuracy for the people who actually need to know.

Someone who is obese is generally going to know they're obese without a number telling them - and if they're determined to be "big and beautiful" they're likely to be delighted with a high BMI. Someone who has large visceral fat deposits and gets told their BMI is 24 and everything should be OK is the person who needs to know.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Somebody who is an abnormal BMI is very unlikely to be in perfect health as you put it

Again, that's not what I wrote.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

That's why I'm comparing it to smoking.

Even though it doesn't compare at all.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

You're alluding that in the majority of cases an abnormal BMI is to be ignored

No, I'm not - you again appear to be reading different text here. I'm saying that you should look at the actual signs rather than relying on a number generating using Victorian guesswork.

jaffacakesyum

MYOB wrote: »

To a very rough degree, and with decreasing accuracy for the people who actually need to know.

What are you quantifying as "very rough degree"? You must live in a perfect world as I could pick any measurement tool in area of life and use the same slant as you have it. You can pick holes in absolutely any measurement tool. The point is to pick the best available one.

BMI was strongly associated with total body fat (R = 0.85 and 0.89) and partial body fat (R =0.63 and 0.69) in one study for children. Also strongly associated in post-menopausal women and elderly...these are just the first few studies I'm reading through. There are loads. Another study showed high sensitivity and specificity ranging up to 96% for BMI to reflect excess adiposity.

Someone who is obese is generally going to know they're obese without a number telling them. Someone who has large visceral fat deposits and gets told their BMI is 24 and everything should be OK is the person who needs to know.

Absolutely they need to be told, but if people with normal weights were getting sent for tests to analyse their visceral fat I would say the average tax payer would be pretty annoyed no? This is why everybody should be told of how much exercise they're supposed to be doing, what constitutes a healthy diet etc. The key is prevention rather than management, in a perfect world.

A good health professional will assess all aspects not just BMI to see if they're at risk of developing chronic diseases, and will tell everyone, regardless of BMI, how much exercise they should be doing.

However, the person with abnormal BMI who is told it's an "absolutely useless measure"...can you not see how that is basically saying "ah I'm sure you're grand and healthy", do you not see how dangerous that is? BMI is significantly associated in hundreds if not thousands of research articles with chronic diseases. There are of course people who have normal BMI's but have poor diets, are sedentary etc. This debate isn't about "BMI is the only thing in the world that will predict your health". It's about the fact that BMI is an accurate predictor of being overweight or obese. It is a good tool to use but it's not perfect. Same as absolutely any other measurement tool; it has its limitations.

What irks me is you are completely ignoring scientific evidence, medical councils, national guidelines from virtually every country in the world, because you think in your personal opinion it is "bollix".

Again, that's not what I wrote. Even though it doesn't compare at all.

You're downplaying the importance of a recognised risk factor. Just like individually, high blood pressure, sedentary behavior, smoking, alcohol intake etc. are all recognised risk factors for chronic diseases. So yes, it is comparable.

No, I'm not - you again appear to be reading different text here. I'm saying that you should look at the actual signs rather than relying on a number generating using Victorian guesswork.

BMI is a sign. Like many many other factors that come into a proper assessment of health.

To be honest, you can look at the research yourself. I just hope you're not in the healthcare field..

L1011

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What are you quantifying as "very rough degree"? You must live in a perfect world as I could pick any measurement tool in area of life and use the same slant as you have it. You can pick holes in absolutely any measurement tool. The point is to pick the best available one.

And this is not the best available one. Its just free.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

can you not see how that is basically saying "ah I'm sure you're grand and healthy", do you not see how dangerous that is?

You just outright dismissed the risk of someone being told their BMI was "healthy" when they weren't, then drag this up from somewhere? Come on. Some consistency of argument would be a good idea.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What irks me is you are completely ignoring scientific evidence, medical councils, national guidelines from virtually every country in the world, because you think in your personal opinion it is "bollix".

The scientific evidence is of the risks of being overweight, not of a "high BMI".

There is plenty of journal articles, etc, written about the lack of accuracy of BMI, the dangers of how overhyped it has become, etc, but you appear to be completely ignoring these yourself.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

You're downplaying the importance of a recognised risk factor. Just like individually, high blood pressure, sedentary behavior, smoking, alcohol intake etc. are all recognised risk factors for chronic diseases. So yes, it is comparable.

I'm not downplaying the importance of the actual risk factor, just the dreadful way people have decided to take guesses at it.

If you're concerned about body fat, get it checked *properly*. Don't rely on Victorian guesswork.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

To be honest, you can look at the research yourself. I just hope you're not in the healthcare field.

I'm on the peripheries of it enough to have read enough journals to know where I'm coming from.

I'm not willing to continue to debate with someone who writing properly, and tries to bring in emotive strawmen (the smoking thing, which anyone rational can see was ridiculous) though.

KDII

This conversation makes me feel like I'm in work. I'm playing the Toy Story 3 game with my girlfriend on PS3. We had some trouble defeating the Evil Emperor Zurg. I saved the day and impressed her though.

1ZRed

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Absolutely and they're all points I've addressed already. My point is that BMI is not necessarily an accurate measurement of health (there is no one accurate tool for that), but is in general an accurate measurement to class your weight as underweight, normal, overweight or obese. A rugby player is hardly going to use BMI as a measurement of health - I don't think anybody who's sporty or goes to the gym and has a lot of muscle mass even believe that BMI is an important measure for them; in my experience people are well educated about this.

I've also already alluded to the visceral fat which is definitely more important than other fat. Hence why you use BMI in conjunction with other measurements.

My issue is with people who are telling others (who are obviously trying to lose weight and who know they need to and are trying to be healthier) to completely ignore their BMI as it's "utter bollix". That is dangerous in my opinion. It's like the women who go on about how society wants them to be thin and they're "big and beautiful". Nobody's saying you have to be a size 6 model, in fact that's unhealthy. But promoting obesity because it's "big and beautiful" really irks me. Like I said earlier, I couldn't give a toss what people look like, it's the massive health risks they are exposing themselves to.

Ok I agree with what you're saying. Won't be so lazy as to skip through to the end next time!

The last bit annoys be too, the whole "I'm not fat, I'm curvy" thing is becoming a joke and something to hide behind. There's being curvy and healthy and then there's being overweight. I'm not one to care what they look like either but I hate this growing mentality that people are standing up for their right to be obese without even thinking about the consequences of it and the message that it sends that is it ok to be obese when it isn't. People would be up in arms about doing something similar with smoking so I don't get the distinction with obesity.

jaffacakesyum

MYOB wrote: »

And this is not the best available one. Its just free.

What's the best available one then? What do you suggest doctors, dieticians and other health professionals use, seeing as you apparantly know better than them?

You just outright dismissed the risk of someone being told their BMI was "healthy" when they weren't, then drag this up from somewhere? Come on. Some consistency of argument would be a good idea.

What are you talking about? I'm saying in the vast majority of cases if your BMI is abnormal, it's not healthy. I'm disputing the fact that telling someone who's BMI is abnormal that they're 'grand, and not to worry about BMI' which is basically what you alluded to in your first post, is not a good idea.

The scientific evidence is of the risks of being overweight, not of a "high BMI".

And how do you think being overweight is quantified? By BMI. Newer studies are looking at other methods like bioimpedence, and finding that they correlate well. Actually a lot of studies are finding that BMI is more accurate; you need to be careful with what fat composition machines your using. Please, read the research.

There is plenty of journal articles, etc, written about the lack of accuracy of BMI, the dangers of how overhyped it has become, etc, but you appear to be completely ignoring these yourself.

There is plenty of research saying that there are differences between ethnicities, as you would expect. This is why research in any sort of medical area is not done in just white, middle class males. That's what they start off in, and then branch to include other countries and ethnicities as there are inherent differences. Hence why there are different findings in BMI and different classes for weight categorisation. I don't see what your problem with this is? Yet you seem to use it as your main argument against using BMI as a measurement tool.

I'm not downplaying the importance of the actual risk factor, just the dreadful way people have decided to take guesses at it.

How are people taking guesses at it? As I've said before, it's a valid, reliable tool as proven by many studies. It's not perfect. But show me any measurement tool that has 100% validity and reliability.

If you're concerned about body fat, get it checked *properly*. Don't rely on Victorian guesswork.

Again, how is it Victorian guesswork? BMI is a very good tool for overweight individuals for plotting their improvements.

I'm on the peripheries of it enough to have read enough journals to know where I'm coming from.

Oh right, that's ok then. You must know more than qualified doctors, dieticians, weight management specialists and virtually every guideline out there on weight management so!

I'm not willing to continue to debate with someone who writing properly, and tries to bring in emotive strawmen (the smoking thing, which anyone rational can see was ridiculous) though.

And I'm not willing to continute to debate with someone who refutes scientific evidence and countless medical professionals because their opinion that its "utter bollix" is better. So I guess that works out well then!

1ZRed wrote: »

Ok I agree with what you're saying. Won't be so lazy as to skip through to the end next time!

The last bit annoys be too, the whole "I'm not fat, I'm curvy" thing is becoming a joke and something to hide behind. There's being curvy and healthy and then there's being overweight. I'm not one to care what they look like either but I hate this growing mentality that people are standing up for their right to be obese without even thinking about the consequences of it and the message that it sends that is it ok to be obese when it isn't. People would be up in arms about doing something similar with smoking so I don't get the distinction with obesity.

Oh no worries at all!

Yeah exactly. Imagine a campaign of "smoking is sexy". There'd be outrage.

Irish Aris

For me the truth is somewhere in the middle. BMI on its own is not the beginning and the end but along the rest of the health screening gives a very good picture. Recent example from my health screening three weeks ago:
My BMI is 25, right to the limit of overweight. My height is 1.72, my weight 74 kilos, I don't have heavy muscles as I don't exercise, except for walking and the occasional jog, so I'd say it's pretty accurate (and I already knew that I could afford to lose 3-4 kilos). On its own the only thing it tells me is that I need to be a bit careful not to go over it. At the same time, my cholesterol levels are off the roof. This is more important and I need to start taking care of my diet and exercise more regularly, which likely will make me lose a bit of weight, thus bringing the BMI a bit down. So, to me, BMI is part of the picture.
btw, in my health screening results, there is the following definition of BMI:
"BMI is an estimate of body fat and a good gauge of your risk for diseases that can occur with more body fat. The higher your BMI, the higher your risk for certain diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, gallstones, breathing problems and certain cancers. Although BMI can be used for most men and women, it does have some limits:
-It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
-It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle"
I reckon it sums it up pretty well.

Annasopra

Love this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9X0lI_Ol9Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ash885

mango salsa wrote: »

Love this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9X0lI_Ol9Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Now this is going straight on the i-pod!

baby and crumble

KDII wrote: »

This conversation makes me feel like I'm in work. I'm playing the Toy Story 3 game with my girlfriend on PS3. We had some trouble defeating the Evil Emperor Zurg. I saved the day and impressed her though.

EHRMAGHERD! THE ZURG!!!

KDII

baby and crumble wrote: »

EHRMAGHERD! THE ZURG!!!

He's such a fecker! I got serious kudos though so all good :cool:

Good luck to anyone with exams by the way!

baby and crumble

HELP! I'm handing in my masters thesis TOMORROW!!!!!!!!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I just necked a full can of Monster Ripper, I can see through time!!!!!

Annasopra

baby and crumble wrote: »

HELP! I'm handing in my masters thesis TOMORROW!!!!!!!!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I just necked a full can of Monster Ripper, I can see through time!!!!!

Good luck

wonderfulname

Good luck b&c!

Annasopra

Happy May Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrTs5DfK_M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Daith

Anybody any suggestions for a week away in Europe for two? I think I'd get bored in one place so might look to split the cities places.

baby and crumble

Vienna and Lljubliana. They're a few hours away from each other on the train and its a GLORIOUS train journey during the summer. Lljubliana is beautiful, really chilled and gorgeous. Stay in the Hostel Celica where you stay in redesigned prison cells. Lake Bled is a quick train ride away and seriously stunning.

Annasopra

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/sexual-abuse-in-white-community

jaffacakesyum

mango salsa wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/06/sexual-abuse-in-white-community

I think that's a good article with some good points in it.

Nonetheless though, it's overlooking the fact that people ARE questioning what is it about thw Catholic Church and sexual abuse? Not just Muslims. It's not really a case about black or white or whatever, it's more that there is/was a serious trend in the Catholic Church of abuse. Sure, they were probably the minority of priests who were abusing and covering up abuse, but they were still one hell of a significant minority and there definitely is a stereotype of those in power in the Catholic Church being involved in such things. I don't know if the same can be said of the Muslim community and certain crimes.

Annasopra

NSFW

Overindulging on alcohol and junk food is a perfectly acceptable alternative to having a boyfriend right?
*sigh*

1ZRed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Overindulging on alcohol and junk food is a perfectly acceptable alternative to having a boyfriend right?
*sigh*

Throw in some cats and you're good to go!