EPT+ Show Spoiler [Half Ton Teen] +
What you think the kid can do to regain his life back? Maybe only eating vegetables for several weeks? oO. Not sure if he can take it.
FULL VIDEO THANKS JOHN7KFC!
Half Ton Teen
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [Half Ton Teen] + What you think the kid can do to regain his life back? Maybe only eating vegetables for several weeks? oO. Not sure if he can take it. FULL VIDEO THANKS JOHN7KFC! | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
Well that kid is dead in about 3-4 years if he doesn't fix that. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
| ||
|
aeroH
United States1034 Posts
i thought the mom was big at first =X | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
movmou
United States142 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
It is called a god damn salad, if he doesn't want it then he won't eat. He will get hungry eventually, and if he wants something else that bad he will make it himself. Tough love. EDIT: Also send the kid to a therapist. | ||
|
Licmyobelisk
Philippines3682 Posts
But for this kid, guess he has to join the biggest loser LOLOLZ! on another note: kid really has hope since there's a woman which was 650 lbs reduced to 150 I think. If you watch the video you would see her there. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
USA pays 200 billion dollars treating overweight patients (diabetes II, Heart problems). Urban Institute researcher Stan Dorn suggest that food that causes overweight problems should have tax on it. This will cover Medical bills and advertisement on this matter. Source: yle.fi (finnish though) | ||
|
Lovin
Denmark812 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It's the kid's as well as the parent's fault. I'd even go as far as to say when the kid was younger the parent's should have been charged with child abuse. That is fucking ridiculous. It is called a god damn salad, if he doesn't want it then he won't eat. He will get hungry eventually, and if he wants something else that bad he will make it himself. Tough love. EDIT: Also send the kid to a therapist. This. | ||
|
stanley_
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
Flakes
United States3125 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:52 Too_MuchZerg wrote: At the moment USA has 33% overweight people and in next 6 years its going to raise to 40% of total USA population. USA pays 200 billion dollars treating overweight patients (diabetes II, Heart problems). Urban Institute researcher Stan Dorn suggest that food that causes overweight problems should have tax on it. This will cover Medical bills and advertisement on this matter. Gosh I hope that tax doesn't get implemented, most of my food considerations are based on the food's calories-per-dollar ratio. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:56 Flakes wrote: Gosh I hope that tax doesn't get implemented, most of my food considerations are based on the food's calories-per-dollar ratio. i'm a vegetarian so i dont care. | ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:56 Flakes wrote: Gosh I hope that tax doesn't get implemented, most of my food considerations are based on the food's calories-per-dollar ratio. Don't worry, news link I posted has some negative things against this tax thing like "It gives less freedom to choose what you eat". Mostly people were against it. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
I'm not a slimy vegetarian so I do care! | ||
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:23 YPang wrote: This shit is sad... How can the kid's parents feed him SO MUCH FOOD? I understand that genes may be part of it, but holy shit once you're 300lbs you gotta stop and control yourself no? It doesn't work like that for most people. There's no one point where they suddenly decide to change the way they live/eat. That is... until it gets so out of control that they take up an "all or nothing" attitude and prepare for surgery or other magic fixes. It bothers me when this happens to people and they claim it wasn't their fault, though. | ||
|
Mah Buckit!
Finland474 Posts
You know I think taxing can diminish the amount of obese people. Since taxing of sweets was removed in Finland the consumption has doubled. Now the taxes are coming back but they could raise taxes on other fatty foods too IMO. Actually that Stan Dorn has pretty neat idea, to raise taxes on things that are unhealthy and cause medical bills. This could well be implemented to alcohol, tobacco and drugs as they wont affect those who don´t overuse all this stuff. In other hand if these get too pricey they will create crime whereas taxing food propably won´t. I actually almost feel bad for this kid because of his parents. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
 And the fact his mom doesn't even realise she's killing her own son... | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
can i get nobel peace prize now | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
On September 08 2009 02:23 Caller wrote: use human fat to produce electricity can i get nobel peace prize now You'd make a fortune in the US. | ||
|
Sharp-eYe
Canada642 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
Pengu1n
United States552 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20010 Posts
| ||
|
Ho0ps
United Kingdom216 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7215 Posts
| ||
|
ThePhan2m
Norway2750 Posts
| ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
I'm a pretty decent sized guy myself, (230lbs, 104kg) and I couldn't even imagine taking in that many calories in one day. The sad part is every single one of those calories are probably given to him, since it's pretty clear he can't do anything for himself. I actually feel really sorry for this guy, since I could imagine myself going down the same path if my family wasn't too poor for food. (jk?) | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
Retarded people have very little selfcontrol. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
|
theobsessed1
United States576 Posts
| ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
Dont feed him so much shit and he wouldnt be so obesse. He would probably still be seriously overwheight but at least he should be able to move around and actually live. | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
People don't understand that you don't just suddenly become that fat. It happens over a long process and it can happen so slow that you don't realize how big you've gotten until someone points it out to you. It's like meeting up with someone you haven't seen in a few years, they will be like "oh you look soooo different", wtf I thought I looked the same? After a certain amount of time it is so easy to get the idea that, "it's too late, I'm already 400lbs +, I will never be skinny again... why even try?" And that's how they build up to 600-800 and when they realize they will soon no longer be able to walk or move is when they do drastic things like these surgeries. I believe it is the parents fault. It is your job to raise your child so that he/she has an understanding of the world and will be able to take care of themselves. This man was most likely exposed to unhealthy eating the second he came into this world - he never knew any better. Now he is old enough to think for himself and he's thinking, "My god... what have I done to my body?" Even the healthy food he eats is destroyed by toppings. "My son likes healthy food too, like brocoli, but only if it has cheese on top... everyone loves cheese!" I bet his salads are covered in bacon bits, eggs, turkey and ham diced up, drenched in dressing, and with enough croutons to be its own meal. The real travesty here is parents bringing children in to this world when they can't even take care of themselves. Then they refuse to listen to the advice of others. The mother even said "People ask me why I spoil him with food like I do, I just tell them its love. I love him" Just absolutely disgusting. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Machine leg
Sweden52 Posts
| ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
| ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
She probably fed her son like the way she fed herself. The result is obvious. | ||
|
FuDDx
United States5008 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:05 Snet wrote: Certainly it's absurd to let yourself go like that, but it doesn't make him some kind of freak. Just hearing the way he interacts with his parents and the doctors, he's extremely sweet and polite. People don't understand that you don't just suddenly become that fat. It happens over a long process and it can happen so slow that you don't realize how big you've gotten until someone points it out to you. It's like meeting up with someone you haven't seen in a few years, they will be like "oh you look soooo different", wtf I thought I looked the same? After a certain amount of time it is so easy to get the idea that, "it's too late, I'm already 400lbs +, I will never be skinny again... why even try?" And that's how they build up to 600-800 and when they realize they will soon no longer be able to walk or move is when they do drastic things like these surgeries. I believe it is the parents fault. It is your job to raise your child so that he/she has an understanding of the world and will be able to take care of themselves. This man was most likely exposed to unhealthy eating the second he came into this world - he never knew any better. Now he is old enough to think for himself and he's thinking, "My god... what have I done to my body?" Even the healthy food he eats is destroyed by toppings. "My son likes healthy food too, like brocoli, but only if it has cheese on top... everyone loves cheese!" I bet his salads are covered in bacon bits, eggs, turkey and ham diced up, drenched in dressing, and with enough croutons to be its own meal. The real travesty here is parents bringing children in to this world when they can't even take care of themselves. Then they refuse to listen to the advice of others. The mother even said "People ask me why I spoil him with food like I do, I just tell them its love. I love him" Just absolutely disgusting. I could not agree more. My wife and I share alot of your views. Its insane the way kids are raised or the lack any parental supervision. Unfortunately most adult parents have little to no clue about proper healthy eating or portion size let alone the mass of children that have children. In many cases ONE large smoothie or hamburger or whatever has enough calories for an entire day. Not only that but even the "health" food put into your local grocers are full of chemicals, preservatives, and flavorings, shit we even engeinerr stuff so its more bright,colorful, and even tastes different. Of course I base my feelings off of what I see here in my small part of the world. It may be diffrent where you live but in general us USA people are not well educated on health issues. | ||
|
TransfuSe
Canada201 Posts
| ||
|
danmooj1
United States1855 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:29 TransfuSe wrote: yeah its a pretty brutal show. I was watching it last night and when his mom made him a roast beef sandwhich, it was huge. he also said "go easy on the mustard" and she still dumps like half a container of mustard on the thing. maybe that is going easy lol | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 02:18 Mah Buckit! wrote: Wow! Think of that kids potential, as in energy (mgh). You know I think taxing can diminish the amount of obese people. Since taxing of sweets was removed in Finland the consumption has doubled. Now the taxes are coming back but they could raise taxes on other fatty foods too IMO. Actually that Stan Dorn has pretty neat idea, to raise taxes on things that are unhealthy and cause medical bills. This could well be implemented to alcohol, tobacco and drugs as they wont affect those who don´t overuse all this stuff. In other hand if these get too pricey they will create crime whereas taxing food propably won´t. I actually almost feel bad for this kid because of his parents. I would imagine you are for the poor, correct? Do poor people really have the option to choose from a variety of options in their diets? No, they don't. Look at it from a market perspective. Fatty foods are normally the cheapest for the amount of food. I think the alternative of being hungry is not any better. Let people decide for their own what they want to eat and how they want to live without proclaiming dictats down to the lowly proleteriat. Once you go down this logical road, you might as well tax anything that has a negative effect. Why not? What in the logical process prevents you. Logical inconsistencies are the worst. It's as worst as stupid seatbelt laws, and bicycle helmet laws. If these people take the risks they full well are aware of, then why is it anyone else's business? Perhaps you shouldn't be so worried about what other people do, yes? | ||
|
Dr. Tran
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
Surgery isn't really necessary, feed the kid only water, lettuce, and vitamins.. maybe 1/4 of one of his normal meals each day as a treat. Listen to him whine about being hungry for about 1 year... but he'll get used to it. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
Even if 5 of me stood on a scale it would not be able to outweigh him. o.O wow. It's pretty disgusting actually, this kid is so fat he's like jabba the hutt from star wars...cant do shit himself and has giant boobs | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:39 Aegraen wrote: I would imagine you are for the poor, correct? Do poor people really have the option to choose from a variety of options in their diets? No, they don't. Look at it from a market perspective. Fatty foods are normally the cheapest for the amount of food. I think the alternative of being hungry is not any better. Let people decide for their own what they want to eat and how they want to live without proclaiming dictats down to the lowly proleteriat. Once you go down this logical road, you might as well tax anything that has a negative effect. Why not? What in the logical process prevents you. Logical inconsistencies are the worst. It's as worst as stupid seatbelt laws, and bicycle helmet laws. If these people take the risks they full well are aware of, then why is it anyone else's business? You almost sound like you think there's no problem to solve and all would be fine if everyone would just ignore this guy's cry for help on the grounds that it was his choice to become a dieing teen. If you claim you do care about people, then what solution do you propose? You do agree something needs to be done, don't you? He and a growing number of people like him are sick, morbidly so. Why are you against preventing needless suffering? Perhaps you shouldn't be so worried about what other people do, yes? It's called compassion, look it up. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 04:01 Doctorasul wrote: You almost sound like you think there's no problem to solve and all would be fine if everyone would just ignore this guy's cry for help on the grounds that it was his choice to become a dieing teen. If you claim you do care about people, then what solution do you propose? You do agree something needs to be done, don't you? He and a growing number of people like him are sick, morbidly so. Why are you against preventing needless suffering? It's called compassion, look it up. How is taxing food* compassion? Might want to read my little quote also. *The tax levied on top of the existing taxes... If obese people don't want to get better, then that's their choice. I have no say in how another person can or should live. It's their life, not mine. It's not a problem for anyone, but himself. What is there to solve if the person doesn't want to solve the problem? I'm also not sure what kind of help you are proposing? That is up to his family, and himself. I propose letting people make their own conscious decisions, whether the outcome is negative or positive does not matter. The only thing that does matter is the freedom of conscious choice without any coercive force existing. Stop trying to think you can cure humanities imperfections, you can't. The best you can do is let people live the way they want to. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:18 udgnim wrote: 650 pound man loses 410 pounds without surgery. hopes to get laid. thats fucken amazing | ||
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
Holy Shit. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
On September 08 2009 04:35 Megalisk wrote: "David Smith even hatched a plan to end it. He would get an inflatable swimming pool, and he would take it to a remote spot in the Arizona desert. He would fill it with gasoline, get in, and light a match. It would be a horrific and painful way to die, but that’s what Smith thought he deserved." Holy Shit. i want to watch that 650lb virgin, and i dont have TLC on cable t.t time to mass google.. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
| ||
|
decafchicken
United States20010 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:05 Snet wrote: Certainly it's absurd to let yourself go like that, but it doesn't make him some kind of freak. Just hearing the way he interacts with his parents and the doctors, he's extremely sweet and polite. People don't understand that you don't just suddenly become that fat. It happens over a long process and it can happen so slow that you don't realize how big you've gotten until someone points it out to you. It's like meeting up with someone you haven't seen in a few years, they will be like "oh you look soooo different", wtf I thought I looked the same? After a certain amount of time it is so easy to get the idea that, "it's too late, I'm already 400lbs +, I will never be skinny again... why even try?" And that's how they build up to 600-800 and when they realize they will soon no longer be able to walk or move is when they do drastic things like these surgeries. I wouldn't call an average of ~50 pounds a year slowly adding weight ^_^ | ||
|
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
yeehaa...oh wait. oh no. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
Kennelie
United States2296 Posts
| ||
|
Alur
Denmark3900 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2694/goodeats.jpg) He is obviously a TL member, that can't possibly be a coincidence. | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
starfries
Canada3508 Posts
| ||
|
Achromic
773 Posts
I hope the child loses weight and gets healthier not to his virginity, but to actually live a longer life. | ||
|
ryuu_
United States1266 Posts
On September 08 2009 04:51 Kennelie wrote: how the fuck does this kids heart beat without being smothered by fattening. He's got some strong bones under all that I guess. This is depressing to watch. :/ | ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
I really feel sorry for the kid =\. | ||
|
kakakakakaka
Algeria15 Posts
something like 80+% of adults there are overweight/obese | ||
|
john7kfc
United States317 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzktJYFkEJ0 | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 05:30 PH wrote: Edited above. What he needs probably isn't a medical procedure or hypnotist. What he needs is proper support and inner strength which he has yet to use. | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
About slowly getting fatter without noticing, that's what scales are made for. Simply buy one and put it in a corner of the bathroom, readily available so that anyone can use it when passing by. Half of the problem solved (the other half is to define a maximum weight and take immediate action when reached). That's really something everyone should do, seriously. Scales are cheap as fuck, and since you'll eat less shit thanks to them, they will actually save you money. Best investment ever. | ||
|
StalkerSC
Canada378 Posts
Does he go to school? | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
On September 08 2009 05:47 StalkerSC wrote: Wonder if he players Starcraft all day... Does he go to school? I hope he doesn't play Zerg. Must suck losing every game because your finger is so large that you can't press S without pressing D at the same time and and end up only hatching drones. | ||
|
Sosha
United States749 Posts
Like many have pointed out, the overweight person themselves should have steped up long ago to try to fix it, even if their parents are still just 'throwing' food at them w/ no regard. Before it came to such an obese problem, around 300 lbs, the parents should have taken some preventive measures. I seen a show about an obese person once, his attitude was like; " i don't have a good family life and when i get depressed, I eat ". I mean.. wtf is that? just because u get sad and ur parents and u dont really get along that well, u turn to mass eating? thats prolly worse than a "cutting" self-infliction.. i mean.. eventually u want to come away from such a problem by gaining self-esteem.. Once u get some self-esteem, u can get over cutting and live somewhat normally, but if u have a eating problem because of ur depression, i think it would be harder trying to overcome losing 200+ lbs y'know.. | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
| ||
|
.risingdragoon
United States3021 Posts
Yeah, family, cruel but at least he was no enabler. I'm tall and I've never been fat, but for a long time I hovered above my ideal weight. Well, I fixed that problem a long time ago. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:11 IceCube wrote: Its not gene pool fault, its McDonald's.. Blaming McDonalds is absolutely absurd. And QFT... On September 08 2009 03:39 Aegraen wrote: I would imagine you are for the poor, correct? Do poor people really have the option to choose from a variety of options in their diets? No, they don't. Look at it from a market perspective. Fatty foods are normally the cheapest for the amount of food. I think the alternative of being hungry is not any better. Let people decide for their own what they want to eat and how they want to live without proclaiming dictats down to the lowly proleteriat. Once you go down this logical road, you might as well tax anything that has a negative effect. Why not? What in the logical process prevents you. Logical inconsistencies are the worst. It's as worst as stupid seatbelt laws, and bicycle helmet laws. If these people take the risks they full well are aware of, then why is it anyone else's business? Perhaps you shouldn't be so worried about what other people do, yes? | ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
| ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:15 Mykill wrote: meh he'll die off. "CJEntusman #9001" Oh, that explains your attitude. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. EDIT: For a few that said gastric bypass, I was watching a documentary on 500+ lb people in America the other day, and there was a woman around 800 lbs. All hospitals she originally went to, over 50+ hospitals, all refused her gastric bypass because of the risk involved in doing it. Most hospitals will refuse you gastric bypass once you hit around the 500-600 lb weight. She ended up finding a particular hospital that specializes in gastric bypass for the "super morbidly obese" (haha which is actually a stage above "morbidly obese). | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:19 FabledIntegral wrote: Why do people want to tax fatty foods? Since when should they decide what's best for my own body. I'm responsible for my own damn body, it's not my fault other people are idiots and can't control themselves. Now I have to pay extra because the government deems I "shouldn't be consuming that type of food"? Fuck that, fuck the government in that case. They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote: They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. Cop are probably called due to alcohol-influenced fights/accidents/whatever more than anything else. | ||
Mongery
892 Posts
| ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
On September 08 2009 04:52 Alur wrote: He is obviously a TL member, that can't possibly be a coincidence. O my god I am innocent!. | ||
|
JPaikman
United States75 Posts
Read and weep | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:46 JPaikman wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_fetishism#feederism Read and weep Oh god... and wow this mother has real mental problems... | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:23 nomsayin wrote: They don't believe in reason, and they don't believe that anyone can decide what's best for themselves. They believe that people must be forced to do what is in the best interest of the group. The government already does this with alcohol and cigarettes and it's absolutely disgusting. I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke, but that doesn't apply to alcohol. What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:31 psion0011 wrote: Cop are probably called due to alcohol-influenced fights/accidents/whatever more than anything else. So tax them for fighting or getting in accidents or whatever, not for consuming the alcohol. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote: What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote: Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else. The point is that the tax discourages the consumption of alcohol; by taxing only the drunk drivers who get into accidents, you've acquired the same amount of money, but lives may have already been lost. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:58 nomsayin wrote: Why do all consumers of alcohol have to pay for the mistakes of the drunk drivers? You are punishing the innocent by taxing all alcohol. Make the drunk drivers pay. Take them for every cent they're worth if necessary before you even start to consider taxing those who did nothing to hurt anyone else. I was merely responding to you saying "I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke." How is that different from alcohol? I think you are being inconsistent. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:01 synapse wrote: The point is that the tax discourages the consumption of alcohol; by taxing only the drunk drivers who get into accidents, you've acquired the same amount of money, but lives may have already been lost. The consumption of alcohol isn't what we need to discourage, what we need to discourage is the drunk driving. We can't take away anyone's rights, to purchase alcohol in this case, merely because they have the potential to harm others. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:05 micronesia wrote: I was merely responding to you saying "I realize that there is a case for taxing cigarettes because of the harm done from second hand smoke." How is that different from alcohol? I think you are being inconsistent. It's because in many cases the mere act of smoking the cigarette is hurting those around you by polluting the air and damaging their lungs, while this is not the case for alcohol. It would be more consistent to ban the smoking of cigarettes in public, limiting it to be done on private property. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:04 igotmyown wrote: I'm pretty sure eating 1500-2000 calories a day will help a lot more than going to the gym. Seeing as how an ordinary person would have to walk 300 miles to burn off 30,000 calories, an 800 pound person maybe 75 miles. 30,000 calories, that's like 18.75 pounds of dry food a day. If I spend $50 a week on groceries, 15 to 20 times that is $750 to $1000. 52 weeks that's up to $50,000 in food. Even if I round way down, he's still eating at least $10k to $20k in food each year. Even if you want to let him make his own decisions, give him 2000 calories a day and let him get a job to pay for the rest of his food. 1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible. | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:46 JPaikman wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_fetishism#feederism Read and weep omg that's gross. well atleast the kid knows he's fat....although he really needs to do something about it. | ||
|
uglymoose89
United States671 Posts
and solve the energy crisis. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:10 micronesia wrote: 1500-2000 calories would be too severe a goal for him... that's like what a 90-120 pound person should be eating? I guess it depends a bit on other factors but you know what I mean. He should slowly adjust his diet to slowly bring his weight down... and slowly phase in exercise as it becomes possible. No way, 2000 calories is like for the average adult american, who's going to weigh like 180 pounds, not the average scrawny teenager. http://www.hpathy.com/healthtools/calories-need.asp Ok, parameters 19 years old, sedentary lifestyle, male 90 pounds, 5'0": 1509 calories 120 pounds, 5'6": 1824 calories 180 pounds, 6'0", 20 years old: 2363 calories 820 pounds, 6'0", 19 years old: 7163 calories At a 2000 calorie diet, he'd lose 10 pounds a week, at that rate in half a year he'd be at 550 pounds. To lose 15 pounds a week, he'd have to eat nothing. Edit: wait, that's the BMR, whatever that means. Let me recalculate Edit: BMR is if you stayed in bed all day, in which case he's like 6000 calories. | ||
|
baal
10535 Posts
On September 08 2009 02:18 Mah Buckit! wrote: Wow! Think of that kids potential, as in energy (mgh). You know I think taxing can diminish the amount of obese people. Since taxing of sweets was removed in Finland the consumption has doubled. Now the taxes are coming back but they could raise taxes on other fatty foods too IMO. Actually that Stan Dorn has pretty neat idea, to raise taxes on things that are unhealthy and cause medical bills. This could well be implemented to alcohol, tobacco and drugs as they wont affect those who don´t overuse all this stuff. In other hand if these get too pricey they will create crime whereas taxing food propably won´t. I actually almost feel bad for this kid because of his parents. taxing products to avoid consumption is horrible government control, they are there to govern not to be our nannies. They should also add tax to light clothing in winter, so we dont get a cold, and put huge taxes on video games so kids go out more right? -_- | ||
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
When this kid's body starts breaking down (probably his heart from pushing his blood around the world and back lol), why should my tax dollars pay for his medical bills? Should we integrate a program where mandatory amounts of exercise and proper nutrition are required to be eligible for public health care so that cases like this don't drain the system? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10418 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:21 igotmyown wrote: No way, 2000 calories is like for the average adult american, who's going to weigh like 180 pounds, not the average scrawny teenager. http://www.hpathy.com/healthtools/calories-need.asp Ok, parameters 19 years old, sedentary lifestyle, male 90 pounds, 5'0": 1509 calories 120 pounds, 5'6": 1824 calories 180 pounds, 6'0", 20 years old: 2363 calories 820 pounds, 6'0", 19 years old: 7163 calories At a 2000 calorie diet, he'd lose 10 pounds a week, at that rate in half a year he'd be at 550 pounds. To lose 15 pounds a week, he'd have to eat nothing. Edit: wait, that's the BMR, whatever that means. Let me recalculate Edit: BMR is if you stayed in bed all day, in which case he's like 6000 calories. I think the most disgusting part is... even if he does lose all that weight, he has about 5 times as much skin as he needs... o_o | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 07:52 micronesia wrote: What about the numerous innocent people who are killed by drunk drivers on a regular basis? Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:57 synapse wrote: I think the most disgusting part is... even if he does lose all that weight, he has about 5 times as much skin as he needs... o_o Actually, if he does enough cardio, it's possible for him to lose a lot of the excess skin. | ||
|
PobTheCad
Australia893 Posts
On September 08 2009 01:52 Too_MuchZerg wrote: At the moment USA has 33% overweight people and in next 6 years its going to raise to 40% of total USA population. USA pays 200 billion dollars treating overweight patients (diabetes II, Heart problems). Urban Institute researcher Stan Dorn suggest that food that causes overweight problems should have tax on it. This will cover Medical bills and advertisement on this matter. Source: yle.fi (finnish though) as long as they subsidize healthy options it would be a good idea Actually, if he does enough cardio, it's possible for him to lose a lot of the excess skin. would his knees stand up to that? he should do boxing training imo , even if he sits while doing it | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote: Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:04 micronesia wrote: I guess you skipped the post where I pointed out that I just said that in response to the claim that smoking is different than alcohol in this regard. I have not actually taken a stance on taxation. Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote: Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:59 Aegraen wrote: Since when is the State, the person who got killed? Do these taxes go to recompense the innocent people killed by Drunk Drivers? No, it goes to the State and funnelled into whatever government program, entitlement, or finds its way into the bloated innocuous Federal Government. The taxes never actually go to the families of the loved ones that were killed, albeit, not directly, and in many cases not even indirectly. Wouldn't the logical arguement for this, would be to take the drunk driver to court for externality damages in a reasonable amount for lost wages? If the drunk driver end up dying also, then you can transfer the remaining estate in balance. There needs to be no tax whatsoever and in fact, none of this tax money is used to pay the victims. You have made the perfect case for the abolishment of many Government operations, and the abolishment of taxation. Take a second and logically think about what you just said. If you are truely for the payment to the innocent for the actions of the drunk driver then you cannot be for taxation on alcohol, rather you should be for civil courts, and other associated entities that actually provide remuneration for damages. On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote: Smoking is different. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. Where as with alcohol, there are no externalities associated (Pollution, etc.). Smoking is the same as smoot being produced from a factory causing damages to a third party three miles away. The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. I might add, what are the damages to third parties (For clarification the two parties are the buyer and seller), who are unassociated with either the consumption or the producer (The seller in this case)? I'm merely providing a more articulate response which is echoing nomsayin's original thought. I'm actually curious to hear your response how a product that produces an externality is the same as one that doesn't. I am in agreement. | ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
| ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote: 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. It is inherent to people choosing to smoke as long as it is done in public. Consuming alcohol does not directly hurt anyone, except maybe the consumer. Smoking a cigarette can directly hurt other people, the victims of the pollution of the air. If I were to sit next to you at a park and smoke a cigarette, I would be hurting you with my pollution. If I sat next to at a park and I drank a beer, there is no harm done to you. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:11 micronesia wrote: 99% of second hand smoke is preventable the same way 99% of alcohol-related atrocities are preventable. You are making it seem like second-hand smoke is inherent to people choosing to smoke which is as ridiculous to me as if I were to claim that drunk driving accidents are inherent to alcohol consumption. You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!) | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On September 08 2009 08:27 number1gog wrote: I'm surprised the public healthcare debate hasn't filtered into this thread yet. Well I'll take care of that! When this kid's body starts breaking down (probably his heart from pushing his blood around the world and back lol), why should my tax dollars pay for his medical bills? Should we integrate a program where mandatory amounts of exercise and proper nutrition are required to be eligible for public health care so that cases like this don't drain the system? Mandatory exercise or proper nutrition? Ridiculous. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:20 PanN wrote: Mandatory exercise or proper nutrition? Ridiculous. Exactly. I believe those were rhetorical questions. | ||
|
Bub
United States3518 Posts
On September 08 2009 04:44 psion0011 wrote: Clearly fat people shouldn't be allowed to have kids. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10418 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote: You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!) You leave...? Taxation of cigarettes has nothing to do with second-hand smoke or "pollution" | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:30 BlackJack wrote: You leave...? Taxation of cigarettes has nothing to do with second-hand smoke or "pollution" You do have the ability to leave under most circumstances, but you have lost your right to be in the same area as a person smoking a cigarette. The smoker has infringed on your rights, and should pay for it. Whether or not taxation of cigarettes currently has anything to do with second-hand smoke or pollution is irrelevant to the case of taxation for those reasons. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10418 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:37 nomsayin wrote: You do have the ability to leave under most circumstances, but you have lost your right to be in the same area as a person smoking a cigarette. The smoker has infringed on your rights, and should pay for it. Whether or not taxation of cigarettes currently has anything to do with second-hand smoke or pollution is irrelevant to the case of taxation for those reasons. On pure principle I'm against any form of taxation. Practicality wise in todays political environment I would favor a very low flat tax (5-7%), or a consumption tax (On all non-essential (Food, Water, Shelter) end products) (4-6%), or in another scenario letting the states freely decide how they wish to raise tax money that they would end up pooling to fund the Federal Government. That isn't to add onto the bloated system now, but only after abolishment of the Income tax (Ala, no more 16th Amendment, which wasn't even properly ratified in the first place) Sometimes you have to move in the direction you favor in incrementalism and then one day you'll be at the end point (No taxation). If you wonder how America survived for 140 years without any taxation, that would be through the small amounts they make through Tariffs and other associated measures. This also has a nice by-product when coupled with a decentralized banking system of having the Government "live-within" their means, which is good for everyone. Oh well, now we are way off the topic. Let's get back on topic. Maybe someone should give that kid Richard Simmons phone number? He does a lot of charity work for people in his situation. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24653 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:18 nomsayin wrote: It is inherent to people choosing to smoke as long as it is done in public. Consuming alcohol does not directly hurt anyone, except maybe the consumer. Smoking a cigarette can directly hurt other people, the victims of the pollution of the air. If I were to sit next to you at a park and smoke a cigarette, I would be hurting you with my pollution. If I sat next to at a park and I drank a beer, there is no harm done to you. Then don't smoke in public? Instead of standing in the doorway to the bowling alley, go around to the back where there is nobody except for smokers? Instead of smoking in the kitchen, do it in another room near an open window? Don't sit down next to me on a park bench? If you want to avoid giving other people second-hand smoke you can.... same way most people can avoid allowing alcohol to hurt other people if they so choose (not getting into impaired judgment). On September 08 2009 09:18 Aegraen wrote: You are causing damage to persons around you by smoking. I am truely in awe of how you prevent people around you from breathing in the smoke that you exhale. I'm truely curious, how may I prevent second-hand smoke from those who are smoking around me? (Don't even say Gas Mask!) Read above. Individual smokers don't make a big dent in overall air quality if you stay away from other people. Smoke in your house by yourself or in your room near an open window. Smoke in a place outside that is away from other people. Then, when you drink, do so responsibly and avoid things like driving while drunk or getting into bar fights. How are these issues so fundamentally different? | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
Also, the videos about this kid make me smirk. He speaks of himself as if he were a poor victim of a grand outside force when his condition is almost entirely his own fault. | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
this is why kids need to have instilled in them somewhere to get the fuck out of the house away from momma | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
either approach you want to have with him will require a lot of therapy, and very good one. Be it, surgery, diet, a mix of the two, or even drugs, he needs to do something. And making him starve wont really fix anything at this point, unless you put him in a place where he has something to do other than to be sad about not eating. | ||
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
| ||
|
WindCalibur
Canada938 Posts
They should totally have "gain weight" programs along with "lose weight" programs. | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
he seems like a raelly nice kid though. but yea...... really needs to sort his life out lol. | ||
|
Marine50
Australia1764 Posts
| ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
| ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
On September 08 2009 11:57 MK wrote: Japanese food is the best : eat all you can but never get fat. ... I dunno man, I mean if you are eating your grandmothers cooking maybe, but Japan has a lot of unhealthy shit. Kushikatsu anyone? | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On September 08 2009 11:06 WindCalibur wrote: Im glad that no matter how much I eat, I never get fat! Seriously, I had a period when i was eating like 4000 calaroies per day and I was still like a stick >_>. They should totally have "gain weight" programs along with "lose weight" programs. You did not eat 4000 calories per day. | ||
|
29 fps
United States5724 Posts
and japan's not all healthy stuff, although healthy options are always available, even as side dishes in restaurants. the salads that go with the meals are often drowned in sauce, so it seems healthy, but it really isn't. you could probably ask for it without the sauce if you want | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On September 08 2009 10:29 Draconizard wrote: Aegraen's on the loose again. O.o Also, the videos about this kid make me smirk. He speaks of himself as if he were a poor victim of a grand outside force when his condition is almost entirely his own fault. Addiction is a terrible thing. And his parents pushed him into it. Breaking addiction is hard, and without his family to support him in this (they are responsible for his "diet"), it is impossible... Tough even for a grown man with a strong sense of personal freedom, and we're talking about a teen that obviously hasn't had an easy life. + Show Spoiler + That being said, I know some Japanese fishers that would try and make him extinct. | ||
|
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
| ||
|
omninmo
2349 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On September 08 2009 13:01 omninmo wrote: this waste of oxygen will be in the ground choking worms in a year's time he lost 300lbs or so still overweight as a dumbass but yeah... not to mention hes 19.... | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
On September 08 2009 11:57 MK wrote: Japanese food is the best : eat all you can but never get fat. I doubt that; every culture has their downsides when it comes to food. In North America I think it is definitely the fat contents (from butter, cheese, just to name a few). But most East-asian cuisines are also bad in their own ways. One thing that comes to mind is salt content. One table-spoon of soy sauce has a LOT of sodium in it. One specific aspect to Japanese cuisine is the consumption of raw fish. It leads to many problems that I won't name. Chinese food is even worse. Pretty much anything and everything is coated with sugar. | ||
|
exalted
United States3612 Posts
illu: consumption of raw fish leads to many problems? first time I have heard anything like this (besides food poisoning from non-fresh fish) Also, Chinese food can be greasy but certainly is not "all coated with sugar". Are you white? | ||
|
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 12:43 29 fps wrote: phelps eats 10k+, but that's because he's a super athlete. maybe windcalibur is a super athlete also. and japan's not all healthy stuff, although healthy options are always available, even as side dishes in restaurants. the salads that go with the meals are often drowned in sauce, so it seems healthy, but it really isn't. you could probably ask for it without the sauce if you want Phelps doesn't eat 10,000 calories a day. Most body builders only eat 5,000 to 6,000 a day and that's mostly protein. There's no way anyone eats 10,000 a day and isn't in severe metabolic trouble. | ||
|
anch
United States5457 Posts
On September 08 2009 13:39 Aegraen wrote: Phelps doesn't eat 10,000 calories a day. Most body builders only eat 5,000 to 6,000 a day and that's mostly protein. There's no way anyone eats 10,000 a day and isn't in severe metabolic trouble. self-owned? this shit was so last year, everyone's mom knows it by rumor. http://www.yumsugar.com/1862903 | ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
Man, These people amaze me. They really ought to have seen trouble brewing at least a year or so earlier than they did, sigh >< | ||
|
qwstarplayer
Sweden5 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 13:41 anch wrote: self-owned? this shit was so last year, everyone's mom knows it by rumor. http://www.yumsugar.com/1862903 If you listen he doesn't say he eats 8-10k a day, he said he was told to eat that much. He's more than likely eating between 4,000 to 7,000 a day. I could also be wrong, but I very much doubt it. I'm being dead serious on this, because bodybuilders only eat between 4,000 to 6,000 a day and we eat between 5 to 6 meals a day (includes shakes in between meals and substituting shakes (1,000++) for meals). Look at 47 seconds if you don't believe me. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
| ||
|
SingletonWilliam
United States664 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 08 2009 03:05 Snet wrote: Certainly it's absurd to let yourself go like that, but it doesn't make him some kind of freak. Just hearing the way he interacts with his parents and the doctors, he's extremely sweet and polite. People don't understand that you don't just suddenly become that fat. It happens over a long process and it can happen so slow that you don't realize how big you've gotten until someone points it out to you. It's like meeting up with someone you haven't seen in a few years, they will be like "oh you look soooo different", wtf I thought I looked the same? After a certain amount of time it is so easy to get the idea that, "it's too late, I'm already 400lbs +, I will never be skinny again... why even try?" And that's how they build up to 600-800 and when they realize they will soon no longer be able to walk or move is when they do drastic things like these surgeries. I believe it is the parents fault. It is your job to raise your child so that he/she has an understanding of the world and will be able to take care of themselves. This man was most likely exposed to unhealthy eating the second he came into this world - he never knew any better. Now he is old enough to think for himself and he's thinking, "My god... what have I done to my body?" Even the healthy food he eats is destroyed by toppings. "My son likes healthy food too, like brocoli, but only if it has cheese on top... everyone loves cheese!" I bet his salads are covered in bacon bits, eggs, turkey and ham diced up, drenched in dressing, and with enough croutons to be its own meal. The real travesty here is parents bringing children in to this world when they can't even take care of themselves. Then they refuse to listen to the advice of others. The mother even said "People ask me why I spoil him with food like I do, I just tell them its love. I love him" Just absolutely disgusting. I agree with the bolded very much so. Not that I ever got that fat, or anywhere near it. But you don't realize it until someone says something, or you see a picture of yourself from when you weighed less, you don't realize that you're gaining all that weight. I'm amazed the kid has the ability to walk, though. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5414 Posts
On September 08 2009 14:38 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: I agree with the bolded very much so. Not that I ever got that fat, or anywhere near it. But you don't realize it until someone says something, or you see a picture of yourself from when you weighed less, you don't realize that you're gaining all that weight. I'm amazed the kid has the ability to walk, though. I also agree with this. I gained about 70 pounds over 4 years in university, and have only just now lost it all. (Took a year and a bit). I look at pictures of myself even 5-6 months ago and I go WHOA wtf... I found my student card picture for my final year and I remember thinking back that I didn't look that fat... but wow, do I ever look fat.  Feels so good to finally be in good shape again. This kid can do it if he puts some effort into it. It may take him 4-5 years or so though. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On September 08 2009 14:24 SingletonWilliam wrote: What would happen if you cut the amount of food he eats in half? Would his body go through some sort of shock? They cut him down to 1/8th, so my guess is no. Really fat people normally just disgust me, but this kid makes me sad. Sad that parents can do that to their kids and not even realize it. | ||
|
AtlaS
United States1001 Posts
On September 08 2009 14:38 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: I agree with the bolded very much so. Not that I ever got that fat, or anywhere near it. But you don't realize it until someone says something, or you see a picture of yourself from when you weighed less, you don't realize that you're gaining all that weight. I'm amazed the kid has the ability to walk, though. I can't imagine how fucked up his knees are right now. That kind of weight must be devastating on your joints. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
| ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 08 2009 10:17 micronesia wrote: Then don't smoke in public? Instead of standing in the doorway to the bowling alley, go around to the back where there is nobody except for smokers? Instead of smoking in the kitchen, do it in another room near an open window? Don't sit down next to me on a park bench? If you want to avoid giving other people second-hand smoke you can.... same way most people can avoid allowing alcohol to hurt other people if they so choose (not getting into impaired judgment). Read above. Individual smokers don't make a big dent in overall air quality if you stay away from other people. Smoke in your house by yourself or in your room near an open window. Smoke in a place outside that is away from other people. Then, when you drink, do so responsibly and avoid things like driving while drunk or getting into bar fights. How are these issues so fundamentally different? They may not make a big dent overall, but they do. I would prefer it were illegal to smoke in public, but if it isn't then the next best thing is taxing cigarettes. They are fundamentally different in that the act of smoking hurts those around you, while the act of drinking does not. | ||
|
SiDX
New Zealand1975 Posts
| ||
|
AtlaS
United States1001 Posts
On September 08 2009 15:25 lazz wrote: and now with public health care coming the taxpayers get to help pay for all his medical bills, awesome. but the chosen one says it's the best thing for the us! how could he possibly do us wrong!?!? | ||
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:22 nomsayin wrote: Exactly. I believe those were rhetorical questions. They were, but it I wish the opposite were true. I really do wish some politician had the balls to stand up and say "It would cost us less money in the long run to pay for physical education programs now than it would bypasses later." Heck, if Nada can get ripped and Leta can be a Hapkido badass while being starcraft professionals, then why can't the average American do the same? | ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
On September 08 2009 15:36 number1gog wrote: They were, but it I wish the opposite were true. I really do wish some politician had the balls to stand up and say "It would cost us less money in the long run to pay for physical education programs now than it would bypasses later." Heck, if Nada can get ripped and Leta can be a Hapkido badass while being starcraft professionals, then why can't the average American do the same? 4 year required PE would be so lol.. If they designed the class properly without making me do stupid shit it would be great, but it would still be a pain in the ass.. Plus there's the problem of people not trying anyways -_- America is so full of lazy people.. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On September 08 2009 12:02 Manifesto7 wrote: ... I dunno man, I mean if you are eating your grandmothers cooking maybe, but Japan has a lot of unhealthy shit. Kushikatsu anyone? Right. Actually, come to think again, it's really a problem of portion. Now I'm used to it but I remember when I was just coming back from NYC, I had to order like twice omori every sets in every restaurants. (BUT, JP also eat more vegetable, right ? ) Damn, makes me hungry, gonna have a gyudon. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
That's enough food to feed a small village in Africa. I don't see this guy living very long. | ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
Also towards the end of the documentary it was very refreshing to see the mother finally taking a stand and telling him what's what. I have a feeling that didn't last very long. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
reciprocate
United States41 Posts
I know that my problem is nowhere near as big as this kid's, and I know that he has irresponsible parents, nevertheless my parents have fed me whatever I wanted ever since I was young, and I don't have the problem. I believe it's self control on the kid's part as much as anything else. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
Having given up trying to gain weight because I got cut (oddly enough, for not being big enough), I reverted back to my "normal" habits (ie, not consciously trying to gain weight), and I lost 25 in 4 months. I lost 40 in 6 months. I simply cannot comprehend gaining weight that fast, nor for that length of time. And I am a pretty big guy (currently about 235 lbs). I currently eat about 3000 calories daily. But I am in pretty good physical shape. I saw this documentary on TV a while ago. There was much more to it than just him. It is really sad, disturbing, and eye-opening. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 14:14 psion0011 wrote: Once again aegraen proves he has no idea what he's talking about and can't tell the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercises. It's not the act of exercise its the intent of caloric intake. Of course Phelps daily activities require more calories, however, the Body builder to achieve his desired results requires much more caloric intake because of the required need to pump food into your body to gain massive amounts of mass in short periods. Our body is a vessel, pumping more fuel through in an efficient manner means we become stronger. Phelps goal isn't to gain mass, or weight, but to achieve a balanced equilibrium to achieve best swimming results. Certainly 10,000 calories no matter anyones metabolic rate would cause excessive weight gain, even with the amount of training he does (And it would have to be daily), especially with what he eats. He eats junk food. I tend to side on Biology and nutritional facts, rather than on speculation. Do you think the bodybuilder who is 6'2 325 needs more caloric intake to gain mass, and or to stay at current mass even though his physical routine is not as demanding for caloric intake.... or Do you think Michael Phelps needs more calories who wants to stay at roughly the same BMI, and works out pretty strenuosly daily. Realistically, who do you think will need more calories? That 6'2 325 Body builder will be eating very healthy meats, lots of protein (Eggs, Shakes, Cottage Cheese, etc.) that are pretty healthy for you, and getting the best amount of daily vitamins and minerals, or the guy who eats 10k calories a day in junk food, but yet somehow stays at the same weight... Michael Phelps is no ectomorph. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On September 08 2009 23:47 Aegraen wrote: It's not the act of exercise its the intent of caloric intake. Of course Phelps daily activities require more calories, however, the Body builder to achieve his desired results requires much more caloric intake because of the required need to pump food into your body to gain massive amounts of mass in short periods. Our body is a vessel, pumping more fuel through in an efficient manner means we become stronger. Phelps goal isn't to gain mass, or weight, but to achieve a balanced equilibrium to achieve best swimming results. Certainly 10,000 calories no matter anyones metabolic rate would cause excessive weight gain, even with the amount of training he does (And it would have to be daily), especially with what he eats. He eats junk food. I tend to side on Biology and nutritional facts, rather than on speculation. Do you think the bodybuilder who is 6'2 325 needs more caloric intake to gain mass, and or to stay at current mass even though his physical routine is not as demanding for caloric intake.... or Do you think Michael Phelps needs more calories who wants to stay at roughly the same BMI, and works out pretty strenuosly daily. Realistically, who do you think will need more calories? That 6'2 325 Body builder will be eating very healthy meats, lots of protein (Eggs, Shakes, Cottage Cheese, etc.) that are pretty healthy for you, and getting the best amount of daily vitamins and minerals, or the guy who eats 10k calories a day in junk food, but yet somehow stays at the same weight... Michael Phelps is no ectomorph. With a healthy cocktail of HGH and steroids in the evening. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 08 2009 23:51 craz3d wrote: With a healthy cocktail of HGH and steroids in the evening. Don't forget a needle in the ass, and smoking some pot! /em about to throw in and watch Pumping Iron again! Arnold is so damn hilarious. | ||
|
winterBlossom
Australia27 Posts
| ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
| ||
|
winterBlossom
Australia27 Posts
On September 09 2009 03:24 StorrZerg wrote: if hes like 800+ lbs i could fit 6 + of me inside him DAMN gay | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 08 2009 09:08 Aegraen wrote: The factory is still liabel for the damages caused, just as the person should be liabel for damages caused to third parties in the process of smoking. If you choose to enter a building where smoking is permitted by the owner, you need to stfu and deal with the consequences of your choice. Children, having little recourse, are an exception. But in their case, I feel that criminal courts rather than civil courts would be the more appropriate place for handling things. | ||
|
nomsayin
United States124 Posts
On September 09 2009 04:25 Mindcrime wrote: If you choose to enter a building where smoking is permitted by the owner, you need to stfu and deal with the consequences of your choice. Children, having little recourse, are an exception. But in their case, I feel that criminal courts rather than civil courts would be the more appropriate place for handling things. I agree with the permission of smoking on any private property, but the case of public property is something else. Smoking on the street should not be legal. In the case of children, their parents are responsible for them and what dangers they find acceptable for their children. | ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
7mk
Germany10157 Posts
On September 08 2009 02:41 decafchicken wrote: 30,000 calories is fucking absurd. I throw that back in like 7-10 days and im infinitely more active than that fat blob of floating bones is. I wonder if there's any hope he could lose that weight naturally. He might have to stand up for more than 2 minutes though. 120 000 KJ ONEHOUNDREDANDTWENTYTHOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 08 2009 23:47 Aegraen wrote: It's not the act of exercise its the intent of caloric intake. Of course Phelps daily activities require more calories, however, the Body builder to achieve his desired results requires much more caloric intake because of the required need to pump food into your body to gain massive amounts of mass in short periods. Our body is a vessel, pumping more fuel through in an efficient manner means we become stronger. Phelps goal isn't to gain mass, or weight, but to achieve a balanced equilibrium to achieve best swimming results. Certainly 10,000 calories no matter anyones metabolic rate would cause excessive weight gain, even with the amount of training he does (And it would have to be daily), especially with what he eats. He eats junk food. I tend to side on Biology and nutritional facts, rather than on speculation. Do you think the bodybuilder who is 6'2 325 needs more caloric intake to gain mass, and or to stay at current mass even though his physical routine is not as demanding for caloric intake.... or Do you think Michael Phelps needs more calories who wants to stay at roughly the same BMI, and works out pretty strenuosly daily. Realistically, who do you think will need more calories? That 6'2 325 Body builder will be eating very healthy meats, lots of protein (Eggs, Shakes, Cottage Cheese, etc.) that are pretty healthy for you, and getting the best amount of daily vitamins and minerals, or the guy who eats 10k calories a day in junk food, but yet somehow stays at the same weight... Michael Phelps is no ectomorph. Phelps eats only junk food? Do you really think that? He eats extremely large meals -- balanced meals. Is it the most healthy choice of foods? Probably not, but it's balanced -- just like most normal people. 8 hours of constant lap swimming can require that many calories. It's already recommened that "active" people around Phelp's age get like 3500 calories. Being an olympic athelte and consuming 10,000 isn't that far off. It would not cause Phelps to gain wait given the activities he partakes in. Most people on here (and it's nothing to be ashamed of) -- would be completely wiped out if they swam 1-2 laps of freestyle. it burns a shit load of energy. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 08 2009 13:24 illu wrote: I doubt that; every culture has their downsides when it comes to food. In North America I think it is definitely the fat contents (from butter, cheese, just to name a few). But most East-asian cuisines are also bad in their own ways. One thing that comes to mind is salt content. One table-spoon of soy sauce has a LOT of sodium in it. One specific aspect to Japanese cuisine is the consumption of raw fish. It leads to many problems that I won't name. Chinese food is even worse. Pretty much anything and everything is coated with sugar. Nope. Everywhere in the world the problem is vast quantities of processed food. Processed food is very calorically dense (whether it has excess carbohydrates, fats, or BOTH -- most of them have both). Basically, if you're going shopping, stay out of the middle of the grocery store. Outside is meat, dairy, fruits, vegetables, etc. Inside is everything processed with massive amounts of calories per serving. Chips, soda, cookies, candy, etc. Butter and cheese are healthy. Raw fish isn't unhealthy. Anything breaded/deep fried/etc. is VERY calorically dense and not very healthy. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 08 2009 23:47 Aegraen wrote: It's not the act of exercise its the intent of caloric intake. Of course Phelps daily activities require more calories, however, the Body builder to achieve his desired results requires much more caloric intake because of the required need to pump food into your body to gain massive amounts of mass in short periods. Our body is a vessel, pumping more fuel through in an efficient manner means we become stronger. Phelps goal isn't to gain mass, or weight, but to achieve a balanced equilibrium to achieve best swimming results. Certainly 10,000 calories no matter anyones metabolic rate would cause excessive weight gain, even with the amount of training he does (And it would have to be daily), especially with what he eats. He eats junk food. I tend to side on Biology and nutritional facts, rather than on speculation. Do you think the bodybuilder who is 6'2 325 needs more caloric intake to gain mass, and or to stay at current mass even though his physical routine is not as demanding for caloric intake.... or Do you think Michael Phelps needs more calories who wants to stay at roughly the same BMI, and works out pretty strenuosly daily. Realistically, who do you think will need more calories? That 6'2 325 Body builder will be eating very healthy meats, lots of protein (Eggs, Shakes, Cottage Cheese, etc.) that are pretty healthy for you, and getting the best amount of daily vitamins and minerals, or the guy who eats 10k calories a day in junk food, but yet somehow stays at the same weight... Michael Phelps is no ectomorph. With 60-90 minutes of exercise a day, I need to eat ~4,000 calories to maintain my weight at 5'11" 155. On my more difficult days, I get above 1000 calories/hour burned. But on easier days, I'm around 800-900 calories/hour. Since swimming is a non-impact sport, Phelps is able to exercise much more than 60-90 minutes a day. I would guess something like 3-4 hours a day. And since he is an elite athlete, I'm sure he is maintaing well over 1000/calories an hour burned, even on his easier days. My guess would be that he burns at least 5k calories a day from swimming. The rest of his day would burn him 2k. So 7k+ a day sounds reasonable to me before hearing anything about it. So hearing the figure 8-10k a day sounds totally reasonable. If he ate only 6k a day, I'm sure his body would begin to fail within weeks. Bodybuilders are burning less than 1000 calories from exercise. They're burning a lot more when not exercising since they weigh more. Maybe 1000 calories more. And then since they are trying to build mass, they have to eat more than they burn, which would be an extra ~500 a day. So they're 4k calories short on exericse, they catch up 1k on weight, and another 500 because of their goal. They're 2500+++ calories short of Phelps. | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
i've been like the same weight for the past 4 years. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
On September 09 2009 07:53 Liquid`NonY wrote: Bodybuilders are burning less than 1000 calories from exercise. They're burning a lot more when not exercising since they weigh more. Maybe 1000 calories more. And then since they are trying to build mass, they have to eat more than they burn, which would be an extra ~500 a day. So they're 4k calories short on exericse, they catch up 1k on weight, and another 500 because of their goal. They're 2500+++ calories short of Phelps. Umm, not quite. I was hooked up to a device which measured the amount of calories burned during a workout - I was burning calories in excess of 1000 per hour, during the heavy weight lifting parts of my workouts. Although my training plan included sprints and cardio, the "bulking" parts of it still burnt a shitload of calories - do you know how many calories are burned when you are leg-pressing over 1000 lbs? If you don't believe me, do the math. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
And if you're not such a freak of nature, you burn doing VIGOROUS weightlifting: 130lb 155lb 190lb (your weight) 354 422 518 incidentally identical figures for shoveling snow http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm 130 150 190lb 101x4 117x4 148x4 http://www.dietbites.com/Pyramid-Diet/calories-burned-weight-lifting.html 130 150 190 374 432 547 http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/calorie_calculator.htm | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On September 09 2009 08:32 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Umm, not quite. I was hooked up to a device which measured the amount of calories burned during a workout - I was burning calories in excess of 1000 per hour, during the heavy weight lifting parts of my workouts. Although my training plan included sprints and cardio, the "bulking" parts of it still burnt a shitload of calories - do you know how many calories are burned when you are leg-pressing over 1000 lbs? If you don't believe me, do the math. Weightlifting does NOT burn a lot of calories. Probably less then 300-400 for an hour of weightlifting. Even simple slow ass jogging (aka "cardio" where you can read a magazine during it) burns more than weightlifting does. Heavy weightlifting does, however, promote an anabolic environment for building muscle through neuroendocrine response by increasing growth hormone, testosterone, etc. Muscle requires energy to build and maintain. This is where the extra calories are needed -- to maintain and build muscle mass. This is why when high intensity exercise (heavy lifting, metabolic conditioning, intervals, etc.) is recommended for "burning fat" it's not because of the calories burned. It's because of the neuroendocrine response and stress on the muscles. For example, studies like this: http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html NEPA/NEAT burn much more calories than weightlifting does. Physical job would more than qualify for this. | ||
|
.risingdragoon
United States3021 Posts
On September 09 2009 07:19 eMbrace wrote: Most people on here (and it's nothing to be ashamed of) -- would be completely wiped out if they swam 1-2 laps of freestyle. it burns a shit load of energy. wipeout after 2 laps of freestyle? you gotta be seriously weaksauce to only be able to swim that much. swimming isn't that taxing now if it were boxing, then I'd say that most everybody on here will wipeout after 1 round of 2 min sparring, not even a full round. That's how demanding boxing is. | ||
|
StorrZerg
United States13919 Posts
On September 09 2009 09:25 .risingdragoon wrote: wipeout after 2 laps of freestyle? you gotta be seriously weaksauce to only be able to swim that much. swimming isn't that taxing now if it were boxing, then I'd say that most everybody on here will wipeout after 1 round of 2 min sparring, not even a full round. That's how demanding boxing is. agree any sport where your head to head is extremely taxing, many types of fighting and wrestling. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
On September 09 2009 08:40 igotmyown wrote: Oh so you leg press over 1000 pounds for one hour straight with no breaks? Then I'm sure you burn an excess of 1000 calories per hour. And if you're not such a freak of nature, you burn doing VIGOROUS weightlifting: The "average" man weighs 191 lbs. The "average" man's maximum bench press is about 135..... Where is this "vigorous" workout based from? The "average" man? How intense is "vigorous"? How often are rests? How rapid are reps? How many reps? How would that affect someone who weighs much more than the average man, with the capability to lift much more than the average man? Seriously, don't throw stats in peoples faces. It's a waste of time and effort unless they are actually applicable. A 191 lb man, with a max bench of 135, working hard will burn 500 calories? What about a 250 lb man, with a max bench of well over 300, working hard? Are they even in the same category? Is that what you are trying to tell me? | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
On September 09 2009 09:25 .risingdragoon wrote: wipeout after 2 laps of freestyle? you gotta be seriously weaksauce to only be able to swim that much. swimming isn't that taxing now if it were boxing, then I'd say that most everybody on here will wipeout after 1 round of 2 min sparring, not even a full round. That's how demanding boxing is. im not talking about eldery lap swimming. a few laps of some real effort -- from what i see in real life most people need a breather. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On September 09 2009 10:00 lMPERVlOUS wrote: The "average" man weighs 191 lbs. The "average" man's maximum bench press is about 135..... Where is this "vigorous" workout based from? The "average" man? How intense is "vigorous"? How often are rests? How rapid are reps? How many reps? How would that affect someone who weighs much more than the average man, with the capability to lift much more than the average man? Seriously, don't throw stats in peoples faces. It's a waste of time and effort unless they are actually applicable. A 191 lb man, with a max bench of 135, working hard will burn 500 calories? What about a 250 lb man, with a max bench of well over 300, working hard? Are they even in the same category? Is that what you are trying to tell me? I listed the first 3 sources I could find on calories burned while weightlifting, and they conveniently had a vigorous category. The three sources had very similar figures for all three weight classes presented and were nowhere near your figures. You've shown no sources aside from an anecdotal story about how during your bench press you can burn at a rate of 1000 calories per hour, and completely ignored the hole in your logic of "I burn this much at my peak therefore I burn this much all the time". Furthermore, you were the one trying to refute nony's weightlifting doesn't burn as much as you think argument, which is commonly reported, in fact I gave three sources which corroborated this. Basically it sounds like your argument is: 1) weightlifting is awesome!!! 2) I'm an awesome weightlifter!! 3) Wow I must be awesome awesome!!! And as an aside, I think weightlifting is great, especially for sports, and I prefer it to cardio. But there's more effective ways to spend time if you want to lose weight. And 1000 pounds leg press is impressive. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
On September 09 2009 10:17 igotmyown wrote: I listed the first 3 sources I could find on calories burned while weightlifting, and they conveniently had a vigorous category. The three sources had very similar figures for all three weight classes presented and were nowhere near your figures. Yet again, without knowing how this was calculated, how useful is the knowledge? I'm sure that the "average" man, working "vigorously" could burn 500 calories an hour while weightlifting, but what about an actual bodybuilder? You've shown no sources aside from an anecdotal story about how during your bench press you can burn at a rate of 1000 calories per hour, and completely ignored the hole in your logic of "I burn this much at my peak therefore I burn this much all the time". Furthermore, you were the one trying to refute nony's weightlifting doesn't burn as much as you think argument, which is commonly reported, in fact I gave three sources which corroborated this. Peak was just over 1350..... Average over a half-hour hooked up to the machine was about 1020. Basically it sounds like your argument is: 1) weightlifting is awesome!!! 2) I'm an awesome weightlifter!! 3) Wow I must be awesome awesome!!! Yes, weight lifting is awesome. No, I am not an awesome weightlifter, and I never have been. I have seen many people who can put me to shame - and I can burn 1k calories an hour..... The reason I was hooked up to it was because I was trying hard to gain weight, and I was eating 5-7k calories per day, yet I was actually losing weight. I was setup on the machine (it recorded body temperature, electrolytes, and some other shit, I don't totally understand how it works), and I was surprised at the results..... Burning ~4k calories daily, plus the nearly 3k to sustain my body weight meant I was not able to gain anything..... And as an aside, I think weightlifting is great, especially for sports, and I prefer it to cardio. But there's more effective ways to spend time if you want to lose weight. And 1000 pounds leg press is impressive. Ultimately, it depends on why you are doing the weightlifting, and how you do it. When I was doing it, I was focusing on explosiveness and recovery (necessary for football). It is excellent for building the foundation of an athlete (along with appropriate cardio, and agility training), but that doesn't mean you will be an awesome athlete. | ||
|
Kyhol
Canada2574 Posts
| ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On September 09 2009 12:08 lMPERVlOUS wrote: Yet again, without knowing how this was calculated, how useful is the knowledge? I'm sure that the "average" man, working "vigorously" could burn 500 calories an hour while weightlifting, but what about an actual bodybuilder? Peak was just over 1350..... Average over a half-hour hooked up to the machine was about 1020. Yes, weight lifting is awesome. No, I am not an awesome weightlifter, and I never have been. I have seen many people who can put me to shame - and I can burn 1k calories an hour..... The reason I was hooked up to it was because I was trying hard to gain weight, and I was eating 5-7k calories per day, yet I was actually losing weight. I was setup on the machine (it recorded body temperature, electrolytes, and some other shit, I don't totally understand how it works), and I was surprised at the results..... Burning ~4k calories daily, plus the nearly 3k to sustain my body weight meant I was not able to gain anything..... Ultimately, it depends on why you are doing the weightlifting, and how you do it. When I was doing it, I was focusing on explosiveness and recovery (necessary for football). It is excellent for building the foundation of an athlete (along with appropriate cardio, and agility training), but that doesn't mean you will be an awesome athlete. Yeah well I ate 500 calories a day and lifted weights 10 hours every day and gained weight. edit: i was also hooked up to a magical science device that told me weightlifting adds 200 calories per hour. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 09 2009 12:22 psion0011 wrote: Yeah well I ate 500 calories a day and lifted weights 10 hours every day and gained weight. edit: i was also hooked up to a magical science device that told me weightlifting adds 200 calories per hour. I think it's useless talking about bodybuilding on a VIDEO GAME forum. Obviously, PERVIOUS we are in the minority. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On September 09 2009 12:38 Aegraen wrote: I think it's useless talking about bodybuilding on a VIDEO GAME forum. Obviously, PERVIOUS we are in the minority. Clearly you two are the only people to have stepped into a gym from this thread. You are very special. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On September 09 2009 12:54 psion0011 wrote: Clearly you two are the only people to have stepped into a gym from this thread. You are very special. Obviously. ![[image loading]](http://www.mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hulk-tv.jpg) Ain't sarcasm grand! You can easily burn 1000 calories power lifting (Fatiguing your muscles). Most weightlifting sessions run me between 1HR 45MIN to 2HR 30MIN and that is a good hour shorter than most Bodybuilding regimens. | ||
|
Xenixx
United States499 Posts
| ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On September 09 2009 15:44 Xenixx wrote: I would think swimming uses all of your body and consuming 4-8k calories is reasonable. 10,000 + though I'd like to hear how much hes exercising, at first glance that sounds unreasonable... a lot of questions and speculation as usual from people with less than personal experience... hardest lesson to learn on the internet 'I swears it, Jesus!' Let's just assume he practices swimming a lot harder than average. You know... like he's trying to be the fastest in the world at it. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 09 2009 10:16 eMbrace wrote: im not talking about eldery lap swimming. a few laps of some real effort -- from what i see in real life most people need a breather. To be fair, the mechanics of swimming play an important role as well. I can jog for about 45minutes and probably elliptical for hour+, but I've completely forgotten swimming technique so I'll be winded after 5~ laps. Also, this is an aside but about the previous article someone posted, the facts on "HIIT > ET" are pretty shaky as of right now. The Tremblay study is often taken out of context because it didn't really show much in the first place. The control was bad and the final measurements are strange. Wait, so what the hell is this argument even about? Whether body builders require more calories than Phelps? There's so many other variables besides "lifting vs. swimming." Why even bother? | ||
|
MuffinDude
United States3837 Posts
I get disgusted when I get a pot belly and I would exercise and eat less to get it to go away. | ||
|
ForSC2
United States580 Posts
Also this is child abuse, real child abuse. If he doesn't have some strange disease his life expectancy is probably like 30 years old now. | ||
Peeano
Netherlands4978 Posts
| ||
|
cas
Mexico52 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
like you could chop of his leg at the hip and put it on a fucking see saw and I would be hoisted into the air omfg LOL | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 09 2009 09:25 .risingdragoon wrote: wipeout after 2 laps of freestyle? you gotta be seriously weaksauce to only be able to swim that much. swimming isn't that taxing now if it were boxing, then I'd say that most everybody on here will wipeout after 1 round of 2 min sparring, not even a full round. That's how demanding boxing is. You'd be surprised. Almost everyone I know that's tried swimming can't complete a simple four laps (which is about 2 laps in an olympic pool, as they are 50 meters long as opposed to standard high school swimming pools which are about 25 yards long). I've seen countless people that claim "oh I can swim pretty well," only to jump in and find out it is potentially one of the most taxing exercises on your body you can experience. I knew when I first started swimming, I would be so exhausted from workouts trying to keep up that I would go to Quiznos, eat a large Chicken Carbonara with a bowl of soup, still be quite hungry after, but I would be so tired I'd immediately pass out for a few hours on my bed. I'd say more than 75% of males (then again, I'm using a sample size of literally around 10 [fairly athletic] males that I've witnessed actually try to do this) couldn't swim 4 laps of freestyle in an ordinary pool without being absolutely exhausted. I'm out of shape (haven't been on swim team in around 2 years, but I still have the muscle memory) and I still get a little uncomfortable swimming four laps. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10668 Posts
Swim for Laps can mean anything... As fast as you can? Yeah, you better be exhausted after that. A good pace? What is a good pace. Just swim it? lol... | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 09 2009 19:07 Velr wrote: Uhm... Swim for Laps can mean anything... As fast as you can? Yeah, you better be exhausted after that. A good pace? What is a good pace. Just swim it? lol... Not as fast as you can. Just swim it. Swim it slower, you'll be taking a longer time. Make it analogous to "jogging" in between walking and running if you want. | ||
|
noddyz
United Kingdom462 Posts
| ||
|
Boertie
Netherlands98 Posts
| ||
|
madnessman
United States1581 Posts
On September 09 2009 16:35 Jibba wrote: To be fair, the mechanics of swimming play an important role as well. I can jog for about 45minutes and probably elliptical for hour+, but I've completely forgotten swimming technique so I'll be winded after 5~ laps. Also, this is an aside but about the previous article someone posted, the facts on "HIIT > ET" are pretty shaky as of right now. The Tremblay study is often taken out of context because it didn't really show much in the first place. The control was bad and the final measurements are strange. Wait, so what the hell is this argument even about? Whether body builders require more calories than Phelps? There's so many other variables besides "lifting vs. swimming." Why even bother? If you even have reasonable technique when you swim, you'll find that you can probably swim non-stop longer than you can run. Swimming isn't weight bearing and you can alternate between strokes to give some of your muscles a little rest. It's easy to swim for a long time. It just gets really boring. And doesn't Phelps take like 12,000 calories per day? I used to eat so much during swim season. You really work up an appetite when you swim. EDIT: Yes he does. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-diet-dont-try-it-at-home/ | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
And yet friends of mine need to watch what they eat constantly, and going running almost every day. Obviously if this kid is eating 30,000 calories a day, there's something to be said for that, but perhaps he just had a shitty metabolism to start with? | ||
|
bludragen88
United States527 Posts
On September 09 2009 18:16 cas wrote: the part of his brain that tells him he's full does not work properly I don't see why people in this thread can't seem to understand this. For those of you who wrote something like "it disgusts me when I eat this much", it is because your brain can sense how much fat you have, and when you have too much fat it puts the brakes on your appetite. For morbidly obese people (like this half ton teen), the fat sensor is broken, and they are ravenously hungry despite having way more fat than they need. Imagine having just finished a long exercise session or having starved for a week, and think about how hungry you would be, because your fat stores are not full. That's what it is like for that teen. While the genetics have not been fully traced through yet, this much is definitely known about the body's fat regulation systems, if you consult current medical literature. Whether his mother's coddling is disgusting or not is an entirely different matter, but his appetite is fully justifiable. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4198 Posts
Maybe, when you go to McDonalds, and order a large sized Big Mac combo, with an extra Big Mac, and that's a typical meal for you, you have a problem. Those two Big Macs are enough calories to sustain me for a day - and I'm already a pretty big guy. And if you don't see that it is a problem, and at least try to do something to fix it, Then, in other ways, maybe they have no way of knowing when to stop. I mean, how often do they go see their doctors? How often does their family stand up to them, and tell them that they need to change? How easy is it to access the type of high-calorie food needed to gain this type of weight? There are a lot of things that could be done to prevent this type of situation. But does it conflict with individual rights? | ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
On September 10 2009 00:25 Haemonculus wrote: There's got to be *some* element of genetics involved in this though. I personally can consume ridiculous amounts of junk food and not gain an ounce. And I'm far from physically active, lol. You haven't hit 30 yet! On September 10 2009 00:25 Haemonculus wrote: And yet friends of mine need to watch what they eat constantly, and going running almost every day. Obviously if this kid is eating 30,000 calories a day, there's something to be said for that, but perhaps he just had a shitty metabolism to start with? Genetics/metabolism probably play a significant role (look at his parents), but he's young enough so that it shouldn't really matter if he lives an active lifestyle. | ||
|
roronoe
Canada1527 Posts
Seriously, try carrying 500 lbs and see how many steps you can take. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On September 10 2009 00:28 bludragen88 wrote: I don't see why people in this thread can't seem to understand this. For those of you who wrote something like "it disgusts me when I eat this much", it is because your brain can sense how much fat you have, and when you have too much fat it puts the brakes on your appetite. For morbidly obese people (like this half ton teen), the fat sensor is broken, and they are ravenously hungry despite having way more fat than they need. Imagine having just finished a long exercise session or having starved for a week, and think about how hungry you would be, because your fat stores are not full. That's what it is like for that teen. While the genetics have not been fully traced through yet, this much is definitely known about the body's fat regulation systems, if you consult current medical literature. Whether his mother's coddling is disgusting or not is an entirely different matter, but his appetite is fully justifiable. Still, unless you're retarded, you monitor your calorie intake. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:02 travis wrote: Still, unless you're retarded, you monitor your calorie intake. Why? You have you be taught, usually self taught, about caloric intake and the like. I know you are because you had an interest in getting fit for NW (what ever happened to that?), but how many people does that really apply to? His body's natural mechanism to monitor that doesn't work, and he's got worthless parents/teachers that didn't help him. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
| ||
|
doktorLucifer
United States855 Posts
~_~ | ||
|
bludragen88
United States527 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:07 Manifesto7 wrote: @travis. Or unless you have been bullied and picked on your whole life, and the only solace you find is in food. Honestly, you think a lot of 11 year olds count calories? How many 11 year olds are gong to say "thanks for these three burgers for dinner mom, but I would rather have some steamed broccoli". Gimmie a break. The habits were foisted on him by his parents, and as a result of becoming a social reject because of his weight he retreats further into food. While this is a possible explanation for his behavior - using food as a retreat - monitoring caloric intake can be hard for other reasons too. Like Mani says, 11 year olds don't really have a notion of counting calories. And if they're hungry, they aren't inclined to start trying. And also once you know how to count calories its one thing to monitor those calories that you don't REALLY need - I could cut down from 3000 to 2500 no sweat, by just declining to eat that last whopper junior, but cutting down from 1500 to 1000 might feel worse than pulling teeth, and thats what it would feel like for a morbidly obese person, which is how they get there to begin with (unless you don't believe my previous comment about the morbidly obese being as they are because lack of fat regulation). | ||
|
doktorLucifer
United States855 Posts
On September 08 2009 13:39 Aegraen wrote: Phelps doesn't eat 10,000 calories a day. Most body builders only eat 5,000 to 6,000 a day and that's mostly protein. There's no way anyone eats 10,000 a day and isn't in severe metabolic trouble. Can it really be mostly protein? If a gram of protein is roughly 4 calories/gram, and using the fact that anyone trying to gain mass will intake anywhere between 1-1.5 (sometimes a bit more) grams of protein/pound of bodyweight, it doesn't make sense to say this. a 200 pound bodybuilder would likely intake 200 grams protein/day minimum. Thats 800 calories. Even if said 200 pound bodybuilder consumed 1.5 grams of protein/pound, it wouldn't be much more than 1/5 or 1/6 of his total caloric intake o_oa But you're not wrong in using a number like 5-6000 as a broad generalization for caloric intake, assuming you're talking about laarge/well trained/experienced body builders. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:43 Thesecretaznman wrote: Also: Can it really be mostly protein? If a gram of protein is roughly 4 calories/gram, and using the fact that anyone trying to gain mass will intake anywhere between 1-1.5 (sometimes a bit more) grams of protein/pound of bodyweight, it doesn't make sense to say this. a 200 pound bodybuilder would likely intake 200 grams protein/day minimum. Thats 800 calories. Even if said 200 pound bodybuilder consumed 1.5 grams of protein/pound, it wouldn't be much more than 1/5 or 1/6 of his total caloric intake o_oa But you're not wrong in using a number like 5-6000 as a broad generalization for caloric intake, assuming you're talking about laarge/well trained/experienced body builders. It's not mostly protein. I think Tom Venuto said he used something like 50% carb, 30% protein, 20% fat. Also, I think body builders probably have a much more healthy diet than Phelps. When you're eating for calories in that kind of range, you need to have a lot of junk food or you simply won't hit your mark. I think Brock Lesnar eats a lot of junk food too since he needs an absurd amount of calories too. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
The surgeon: You got a lot of fungus infection in that flap. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:03 Kwark wrote: The surgeon: You got a lot of fungus infection in that flap. I know lol, it's like personal body gardening. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:02 Kwark wrote: Completely the mothers fault. He's been trained to eat on demand and she keeps him imprisoned and feeds him. She wanted this for him. Poor kid. Definitely all the mother's fault. You can't expect a kid to count calories or understand the consequences of certain eating habits. I got this friend that's like 200+ pounds. He used to be this normal-sized kid, then his mom got busy and took him to McDonald's every day instead of cooking. Even though now he's old enough to make healthy choices, he doesn't cause he thinks there's no point and he has no self confidence. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
doktorLucifer
United States855 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:52 Jibba wrote: It's not mostly protein. I think Tom Venuto said he used something like 50% carb, 30% protein, 20% fat. Also, I think body builders probably have a much more healthy diet than Phelps. When you're eating for calories in that kind of range, you need to have a lot of junk food or you simply won't hit your mark. I think Brock Lesnar eats a lot of junk food too since he needs an absurd amount of calories too. A lot of that junk food is just high in fat/grease. You can get all that by consuming a lot of coconut cream (in shakes) or add a a few tablespoons of olive oil to shakes (100 calories/tablespoon), but I guess junkfood is always more fun to eat. :D | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:19 Jibba wrote: I don't have the heart to watch that documentary, but isn't there a father as well? An on-call electrician that has about 30 seconds of air time, and looks completely impotent regarding the family dynamics. It isn't shown, but I get the feeling the mother would steamroll him if he ever got in juniors face a little too much. I couldn't tell if he was apathetic, defeated, or apathetic because he was defeated. There is another documentary about people with the actual genetic disorder where the body cannot regulate food and feels that it is always hungry (it isn't stated that the kid in this documentary had this btw). It was saying most children with the disorder are quite immature in general, and the way this kid acts seems to fit the pattern. He acted like a child to his mom, and the mom just ate it up. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:19 Jibba wrote: I don't have the heart to watch that documentary, but isn't there a father as well? Yes but he doesn't seem very involved in the family. He's an electrician. Seems to me like he just pays the bills and gets free meals out of the arrangement. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
| ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
On September 10 2009 15:03 Kwark wrote: The surgeon: You got a lot of fungus infection in that flap. Cabbage Patch Kid. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
Also, Mani lol. | ||
|
ForSC2
United States580 Posts
On September 09 2009 18:41 FabledIntegral wrote: You'd be surprised. Almost everyone I know that's tried swimming can't complete a simple four laps (which is about 2 laps in an olympic pool, as they are 50 meters long as opposed to standard high school swimming pools which are about 25 yards long). I've seen countless people that claim "oh I can swim pretty well," only to jump in and find out it is potentially one of the most taxing exercises on your body you can experience. I knew when I first started swimming, I would be so exhausted from workouts trying to keep up that I would go to Quiznos, eat a large Chicken Carbonara with a bowl of soup, still be quite hungry after, but I would be so tired I'd immediately pass out for a few hours on my bed. I'd say more than 75% of males (then again, I'm using a sample size of literally around 10 [fairly athletic] males that I've witnessed actually try to do this) couldn't swim 4 laps of freestyle in an ordinary pool without being absolutely exhausted. I'm out of shape (haven't been on swim team in around 2 years, but I still have the muscle memory) and I still get a little uncomfortable swimming four laps. I definitely believe this, swimming exercises muscles you wouldn't develop extensively if you were another sort of athlete. I think my calves got really fatigued when I tried swimming. | ||
|
WeSt
Portugal918 Posts
edit: just watched the whole video. This must be a fake... I mean, being that fat and his mom gets his lunch on McDonald's and makes hamburguers and french fries for dinner? His mom should see a terapist, she's nuts. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
I'm not sure if that's the case but I have a friend that even by eating a sandwich he gains a bunch of pounds the next day. So he needs to keep his diet as well as exercise vigorously to keep his shape. On the other hand, I eat like a 200lb person and never seem to gain any weight at all (6'2", 160lb... hardgainer) | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 10 2009 23:31 ghermination wrote: I wish i could gain weight as well as this kid. I struggled with getting over 170 for like five years and now i've gotten to 178 and just given up. (6'5" btw) Be careful what you wish for o-O | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
hahaha | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
How on earth can s1 sunk so deep? It's not about genetics, nobody is designed to weight half a tone. Jesus Christ this looks so bad. And than some ppl who think they have extra 3 kgs go for a strict diet and here is this thing. Gosh... | ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5094 Posts
so... im sorry to say this but people just need to eat properly. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
On September 13 2009 16:13 pyrogenetix wrote: i'm sorry but my sympathy for fat people has dropped in the past year because I found out myself that if you watch your diet your weight WILL DROP. like SERIOUSLY. so... im sorry to say this but people just need to eat properly. Watch the video and you'll be sympathetic. He barely has free will. He's a victim of his mothers fucked up emotional needs. She did this to him to keep him a dependent prisoner. | ||
|
The_Australian
Australia458 Posts
WHAT THE F*** DID YOU LEARN NOTHING YOU DUMB BITCH!?!? Usually i'm chill but this mother ruining her sons life just makes me so angry. She's so needy and so emotionally screwed. She was crying just because he was taken out of her sight. "i dont think i can walk anymore" - Junior doing excercises with the nurses//docters Doctor: "just try for a few more steps" Mum: "Ok baby i'll get you back to the chair, anything you want, help me get him to sit back down" ASDJJJJJJJJJJDDDDDDDD | ||
|
MezmerizePLZ
United States30 Posts
On September 10 2009 14:43 Thesecretaznman wrote: Also: Can it really be mostly protein? If a gram of protein is roughly 4 calories/gram, and using the fact that anyone trying to gain mass will intake anywhere between 1-1.5 (sometimes a bit more) grams of protein/pound of bodyweight, it doesn't make sense to say this. a 200 pound bodybuilder would likely intake 200 grams protein/day minimum. Thats 800 calories. Even if said 200 pound bodybuilder consumed 1.5 grams of protein/pound, it wouldn't be much more than 1/5 or 1/6 of his total caloric intake o_oa But you're not wrong in using a number like 5-6000 as a broad generalization for caloric intake, assuming you're talking about laarge/well trained/experienced body builders. In training Phelps has a 12,000 calorie/day diet. I am jealous I wish I could eat that much. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403803,00.html EDIT: Oops someone already confirmed this. I'll leave it anyway? On the topic of OP, pretty nasty, the mother definitely has some mental issues. The son is afraid to do anything without confirming that its OK with his mother, he has never had to make any decisions like at all. | ||
|
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On September 13 2009 17:26 The_Australian wrote: the mum paraphrase: "I'm giving him a hotdog...because, well, he just got back from the hospital" WHAT THE F*** DID YOU LEARN NOTHING YOU DUMB BITCH!?!? Usually i'm chill but this mother ruining her sons life just makes me so angry. She's so needy and so emotionally screwed. She was crying just because he was taken out of her sight. "i dont think i can walk anymore" - Junior doing excercises with the nurses//docters Doctor: "just try for a few more steps" Mum: "Ok baby i'll get you back to the chair, anything you want, help me get him to sit back down" ASDJJJJJJJJJJDDDDDDDD Of course she learned nothing. If she had half a brain it would never get to this point in the first place. And of course she doesn't really care about the well-being of her kid. If he's this way he'll always be there with her, he'll never ever leave the house and she will get to take care of him for the rest of his life. All three years of it. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
ok I'm semi joking. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27140 Posts
![[image loading]](http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/giant_keyboard_rug.jpg) | ||
|
BaltA
Norway849 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42481 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
On September 13 2009 19:52 BaltA wrote: 900 punds -> how many KG? 408.233 KGs | ||
|
dongfeng
731 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On September 13 2009 20:50 dongfeng wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E0HKGFoBFs Love 3:30 when the teddies dance | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
 ...but honestly asian rappers suck... | ||
|
wok
United States504 Posts
| ||
|
Meth
Canada396 Posts
On September 13 2009 18:52 niteReloaded wrote: Without joking, playing starcraft might be just enough cardio for him to get started. ok I'm semi joking. lol'd | ||
| ||
