|
On March 06 2012 17:22 Oiseaux wrote:
Being fat does not mean you're unhealthy.
Being fat is not a choice for everyone.
Everyone saying fat people should be bullied because it's some stupid sociological form of Darwinism are just flat out assholes. (Hell by this logic you should also be picking on persons with disabilities for being "weaker." - and for the record I'm not trying to compare the experience of ableism and fatphobia or say they are in anyway similar, merely pointing out a deeply flawed argument)
Body shaming is real and should not be tolerated.
I find it highly ironic so many posters are calling out for "education" when these posters should educate themselves in the cyclical social and medical discourses that permit the social acceptance of fatphobia.
My mom is pretty big, but she's a lot healthier than I am.
She does not deserve to be talked down on by people who exercise half as much as she does so I can't feel bad about this being banned from a place like Disneyland it's not the place to educate people.
I'm against singling out people because they are obese and for the subsidising of healthy foods
(and ofcourse how much you can eat, you'd be suprised how little you actually need)
|
On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated.
Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption.
|
What a fucking joke. It is so typical in this country that people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.
I used to be 300 pounds as a college athlete and people would give me shit (most joking, some serious) but I never took offence either way. I understood that my actions led to me being overweight.
Post-college I've slimmed down, hit the gym, blah blah its not hard.
You can't change culture. American culture is sick, perhaps beyond the point of return.
|
On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption.
Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2]
Sorry, I couldn't find any spiritual benefits.
|
On March 07 2012 02:28 Partywave wrote:You can't change culture.
I don't think I'll ever buy into this idea.
American culture is sick,
This one, though...
|
On March 07 2012 02:30 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption. Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2]
Sorry but a quick Wiki search isn't going to convince me, or likely anyone else, that high fructose corn syrup A) does more good than harm and B) is not a less-healthy option than alternative forms of sugar/carbohydrates.
|
On March 07 2012 02:32 vandelayindustries wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:30 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption. Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2] Sorry but a quick Wiki search isn't going to convince me, or likely anyone else, that high fructose corn syrup A) does more good than harm and B) is not a less-healthy option than alternative forms of sugar/carbohydrates.
What you fail to realize is that fructose is fructose. It doesn't matter it's concentration, and it doesn't matter it's source. The fact that you keep referring to it as "high fructose corn syrup" instead of simply "fructose" suggests this ignorance.
If you have a problem with fructose, then you also have a problem with honey, fruits, berries, and most root vegetables.
Here's some more facts about the comparison of fructose and alternative forms of carbohydrates.
Fructose is often recommended for diabetics because it does not trigger the production of insulin by pancreatic β cells, probably because β cells have low levels of GLUT5.[54][55][56] Fructose has a very low glycemic index of 19 ± 2, compared with 100 for glucose and 68 ± 5 for sucrose.[57] Fructose is also seventy-three percent sweeter than sucrose (see relative sweetness) at room temperature, so diabetics can use less of it. Studies show that fructose consumed before a meal may even lessen the glycemic response of the meal.[58]
|
On March 07 2012 02:36 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:32 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:30 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption. Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2] Sorry but a quick Wiki search isn't going to convince me, or likely anyone else, that high fructose corn syrup A) does more good than harm and B) is not a less-healthy option than alternative forms of sugar/carbohydrates. What you fail to realize is that fructose is fructose. It doesn't matter it's concentration, and it doesn't matter it's source. The fact that you keep referring to it as "high fructose corn syrup" instead of simply "fructose" suggests this ignorance. If you have a problem with fructose, then you also have a problem with honey, fruits, berries, and most root vegetables.
Except that you are grossly misrepresenting what HFCS actually is... It's corn syrup that has been processed to convert a percentage (roughly HALF) of the glucose into fructose. I'm a little bit baffled at how ignorant you actually are about not only the production of HFCS but also the clinical studies regarding its effects on human health—detrimental or otherwise.
edit: go look up the abstract of Bocarsly's study done at Princeton if you're so inclined.
|
Oh jeez. All you anti-fat hysterical sheep.
So people can go drink themselves stupid while dying on cigarets and you are absolutely horrified that some fat guy somewhere is eating too many cheetos?
Toddlers and Tiaras, unemployment, our economy, crime, corrupt political system... and your all acting like drinking sugary pop is the end of our civilization.
Bet you all can't wait for government regulation on sugar intake.
Hurp durp.
People make choices. Why dose one this meaningless matter to you idiots at all? Mind boggling.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 07 2012 02:41 vandelayindustries wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:36 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:32 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:30 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:
[quote]
Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning...
Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food.
You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption. Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2] Sorry but a quick Wiki search isn't going to convince me, or likely anyone else, that high fructose corn syrup A) does more good than harm and B) is not a less-healthy option than alternative forms of sugar/carbohydrates. What you fail to realize is that fructose is fructose. It doesn't matter it's concentration, and it doesn't matter it's source. The fact that you keep referring to it as "high fructose corn syrup" instead of simply "fructose" suggests this ignorance. If you have a problem with fructose, then you also have a problem with honey, fruits, berries, and most root vegetables. Except that you are grossly misrepresenting what HFCS actually is... It's corn syrup that has been processed to convert a percentage (roughly HALF) of the glucose into fructose. I'm a little bit baffled at how ignorant you actually are about not only the production of HFCS but also the clinical studies regarding its effects on human health—detrimental or otherwise.
So your problem isn't with fructose, it's with glucose? What difference does it make if we call if HFCS or not, just tell me what compound you think is harmful to humans!
Better yet, don't bother. I'm done riding this train, I'll get off here.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 07 2012 02:43 gregnog wrote:
Oh jeez. All you anti-fat hysterical sheep.
So people can go drink themselves stupid while dying on cigarets and you are absolutely horrified that some fat guy somewhere is eating too many cheetos?
Toddlers and Tiaras, unemployment, our economy, crime, corrupt political system... and your all acting like drinking sugary pop is the end of our civilization.
Bet you all can't wait for government regulation on sugar intake.
Hurp durp.
People make choices. Why dose one this meaningless matter to you idiots at all? Mind boggling.
Which has a larger negative impact on society - someone being morbidly obese or someone who watches Teen Mom?
Now that I think about it, if we could regulate both obesity AND stupidity...
|
On March 07 2012 02:43 gregnog wrote:
Oh jeez. All you anti-fat hysterical sheep.
So people can go drink themselves stupid while dying on cigarets and you are absolutely horrified that some fat guy somewhere is eating too many cheetos?
Toddlers and Tiaras, unemployment, our economy, crime, corrupt political system... and your all acting like drinking sugary pop is the end of our civilization.
Bet you all can't wait for government regulation on sugar intake.
Hurp durp.
People make choices. Why dose one this meaningless matter to you idiots at all? Mind boggling.
Are you even aware obesity is cited as the number one health problem in the United States?
|
On March 07 2012 02:44 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 02:41 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:36 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:32 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:30 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:23 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 02:11 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:
[quote]
You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food.... You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy. And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated. Please, oh sage, tell us of the wondrous medicinal and spiritual benefits of moderated high fructose corn syrup consumption. Monosaccharides (from Greek monos: single, sacchar: sugar) are the most basic units of biologically important carbohydrates. They are the simplest form of sugar and are usually colorless, water-soluble, crystalline solids. Some monosaccharides have a sweet taste. Examples of monosaccharides include glucose (dextrose), fructose (levulose), galactose, xylose and ribose. Saccharides and their derivatives include many other important biomolecules that play key roles in the immune system, fertilization, preventing pathogenesis, blood clotting, and development.[2] Sorry but a quick Wiki search isn't going to convince me, or likely anyone else, that high fructose corn syrup A) does more good than harm and B) is not a less-healthy option than alternative forms of sugar/carbohydrates. What you fail to realize is that fructose is fructose. It doesn't matter it's concentration, and it doesn't matter it's source. The fact that you keep referring to it as "high fructose corn syrup" instead of simply "fructose" suggests this ignorance. If you have a problem with fructose, then you also have a problem with honey, fruits, berries, and most root vegetables. Except that you are grossly misrepresenting what HFCS actually is... It's corn syrup that has been processed to convert a percentage (roughly HALF) of the glucose into fructose. I'm a little bit baffled at how ignorant you actually are about not only the production of HFCS but also the clinical studies regarding its effects on human health—detrimental or otherwise. So your problem isn't with fructose, it's with glucose? What difference does it make if we call if HFCS or not, just tell me what compound you think is harmful to humans! Better yet, don't bother. I'm done riding this train, I'll get off here.
Not surprised to see you ignore the fact that HFCS is what it is due to the enzymatic processing done to the glucose, rather than its components, and that it produces different grades.
You are too obsessed with this idea that something is merely the sum of its parts rather than a whole.
edit: for those too lazy to do any research:
Metabolic Dangers of HFCS
The Dangers of Fructose
High dietary intake of fructose is problematic because fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. Like fructose, glucose is a simple sugar. Derived from the breakdown of carbohydrates, glucose is a primary source of ready energy. Sucrose (table sugar) comprises one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose. Thus, excessive sucrose intake also contributes to the rise in overall daily fructose consumption. Glucose can be metabolized and converted to ATP, which is readily “burned” for energy by the cells’ mitochondria. Alternatively, glucose can be stored in the liver as a carbohydrate for later conversion to energy. Fructose, on the other hand, is more rapidly metabolized in the liver, flooding metabolic pathways and leading to increased triglyceride synthesis and fat storage in the liver. This can cause a rise in serum triglycerides, promoting an atherogenic lipid profile and elevating cardiovascular risk. Increased fat storage in the liver may lead to an increased incidence in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and this is one of several links between HFCS consumption and obesity as well as the metabolic syndrome.7
Fructose may have less impact on appetite than glucose, so processed foods rich in fructose can contribute to weight gain, obesity, and its related consequences by failing to manage appetite.20 Additionally, loading of the liver with large amounts of fructose leads to increased uric acid formation, which may contribute to gout in susceptible individuals.7
|
On March 06 2012 21:17 Nallen wrote:
Anyone with even the slightest confusion about why there is such a large scale obesity problem in the States needs to put an American restaurant portion next to a European one. The veil should be lifted. Also you should perhaps try stocking some fresh fruit and veg in your super markets.
QFT.
The difference in the average restaurant meal size between America and Canada is startling.
I don't know if American's even realize this, but you're being fed to death.
|
Political correctness needs to be stopped. Its just so obsurd.
Political correctness logic;
10 years ago - It is racist to call someone black, not racist to call someone coloured
Now - It is racist to call someone coloured, but its ok to call people black.
These mad people need to be stopped before they ruin the world.
|
Width is overused as an indicator of health. But if you eat and drink crap, breathe stale indoor air, don't move your body, and undersleep, you can't go blaming 'genetics' for terrible health.
On March 07 2012 02:36 liberal wrote:
If you have a problem with fructose, then you also have a problem with honey, fruits, berries, and most root vegetables.
For honey, you're probably right, but fruits, berries, and root vegetables have a great deal of fiber with their fructose (not to mention a host of other real nutrients). Furthermore, it takes a lot of fruit to give you the fructose of a 20oz soda.
Note that sucrose is half fructose and half glucose (with a chemical bond your body breaks easily), and 'high fructose corn syrup' is ~half fructose. I'm not sure if there's any real difference between the two.
|
United States261 Posts
You know, maybe if Disney gave a shit about their obese customers, they could provide healthier food options.
|
On March 07 2012 03:01 Akasha wrote:
You know, maybe if Disney gave a shit about their obese customers, they could provide healthier food options.
That is actually a very good point. I've never been to Disneyland (neither in RL nor on TL haha)- what do they offer as food/snacks there?
|
On March 07 2012 03:03 Monsen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 03:01 Akasha wrote:
You know, maybe if Disney gave a shit about their obese customers, they could provide healthier food options. That is actually a very good point. I've never been to Disneyland (neither in RL nor on TL haha)- what do they offer as food/snacks there?
In Paris mostly junk food but if you're ready to pay there is some pretty good meals. You can bring your own meal as well.
|
On March 07 2012 02:43 gregnog wrote:
Oh jeez. All you anti-fat hysterical sheep.
So people can go drink themselves stupid while dying on cigarets and you are absolutely horrified that some fat guy somewhere is eating too many cheetos?
Toddlers and Tiaras, unemployment, our economy, crime, corrupt political system... and your all acting like drinking sugary pop is the end of our civilization.
Bet you all can't wait for government regulation on sugar intake.
Hurp durp.
People make choices. Why dose one this meaningless matter to you idiots at all? Mind boggling.
There's a HUGE difference between obesity and cigarettes/alcohol. Parents who are fat are raising their children to be fat as well, getting them started when they are too young to really know better. As a result, they go into their lives with low confidence and never really thinking they can lose the weight. This isn't the case with cigs or beer. Obesity *is* a bigger problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
