EPTPolitical correctness gone mad - childhood obesity - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
antelope591
Canada820 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46671 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. You either care about weight issues or you care about how stupid reality television is and unemployment and the economy and crime and politics. Interesting false dichotomy there. | ||
|
Monsen
Germany2548 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:05 Mohdoo wrote: 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. That's certainly a significant difference. Smoking and alcohol are (in theory) only available at an age where you do have at least some semblance of an idea of what you're doing while the risk of obesity basically starts the moment breast feeding stops. So if your parents fuck up it's not only them being a bad role model which is the same for smoking and alcohol, but you can already be ridiculously obese by the time you're actually able to make decisions for yourself. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 01:45 Nallen wrote: All areas apart from inside fast food restaurants and supermarkets, evidently. I guess the t-shirt thing may well be a simple case of where you buy, a Diesel Medium is not the same as a super-generic Medium. That said, what we received was at least the size of a Large over here (compared them) and not what I'd say fit me at all (160lb). the only reason why you can't find healthy foods in a supermarket is because you aren't looking. wtf? I weigh 150 and a medium feels like a baby shirt on me. maybe you're just skinny as hell? edit: and I buy my shirts at the places that only sell generic sizes. i think you're either making stuff up or you're a twig. | ||
|
KainiT
Austria392 Posts
In the mass media you often even read words like "frightening" when some society reporter describes someone that he thinks to be anorexic some people are just hardgainers and/or feel comfortable with little weight, if you have to tolerate fat people(which is much worse since it's unhealthier, uglier(note that we compare very fat with very thin) and hurts society more(takes two seats in public transports, often smells bad cause of sweat that obviously correlates with fatness etc.)) people should also have to tolerate thin people | ||
|
Notfragile
Greece713 Posts
On March 07 2012 02:36 liberal wrote: 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] You are quite an excuisite example of why you must not quote stuff you don't understand. Let me say this as simple as I can, without quotes you cannot even comprehend. Because I do comprehend what you said there. You don't. A standard meal has sugars equal to the amount there is in the raw materials it's made from. That's what we eat here in Europe. A fast food meal, or in general an American type of quick meal (pizza, pre-cooked frozen food, etc) has added sugars plus the ones of the raw materials. That's where the unhealthiness of the fructose syrup comes into play. Not that fructose is bad. But if I eat something that contains sugars (ex. honey, fruits, root vegetables) with my meal and you do that too, you will have taken in vastly more sugars than you should. Because your body is regulated by evolutionary means to make you feel "full" when the appropriate amount of nutrients is taken in. When you add sugars like crazy to everything you eat (usually by the suryp) then when you are feeling "full", you have taken in more sugars/calories than you should. Here we don't add sugar to tomato sauce. We don't use ketchup. It is disgustingly sweet. American people have generated a tolerance to the sweet taste and there was a fine little experiment conducted by reddit users, where they tried to prepare their own meals so that they could avoid extra sugar input. The results were astonishing even for them: a) It was damn hard to eat something without added sugars in the US. They had to prepare almost everything themselves (like the rest of the world does) b) In the start of a weeklong "sugar detox" they thought the foods tasted awefully bitter and bland. c) By the end of the experiment they said the foods tasted just like before (when it had a lot of sugar in it) because the developed sugar tolerance in taste was gone, only now they could appreciate more subtle flavours and they ate a lot of less calories per meal. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:19 KainiT wrote: What I think is funny is that fat people often tned to get sympathies in society but if someone is too thin he just gets shit everywhere ->"he/she is probably mentally ill/cannot deal with his/her own body" In the mass media you often even read words like "frightening" when some society reporter describes someone that he thinks to be anorexic some people are just hardgainers and/or feel comfortable with little weight, if you have to tolerate fat people(which is much worse since it's unhealthier, uglier(note that we compare very fat with very thin) and hurts society more(takes two seats in public transports, often smells bad cause of sweat that obviously correlates with fatness etc.)) people should also have to tolerate thin people it's more unhealthy to be 5 lbs. underweight than it is to be 50 lbs overweight. neither group should be made fun of or stigmatized as that's rude and bad and not acceptable. anorexia is horribly unhealthy, in fact it's probably the single most unhealthy thing you can do to yourself. the strain on your heart caused by anorexia is far greater than the strain caused by love handles. | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 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. Interesting that you believe that being against over-drinking and over-smoking is mutually exclusive with being against over-eating. Maybe, just maybe, many of the people in here are against both? And also concerned about all of those issues you mentioned? Personally, by the way, the main issue for me here is the fact that it is getting put out there that being fat is okay. It really isn't, and people riding easy because society deems it insensitive to point out something to them is just counter productive. And way to put words in our mouths. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
 and those that blame parents, i grew up never eaten a pizza, fries, or hamburger until i was in my teens and if i asked for seconds while i was a kid, my mom would give me the stare of death and i cannot eat any more because i was chubby. i grew up eating kimchee and its variants, rarely meat (korean bbq, pork belly) and my mom made of sure of diet because i was chubby. i can't help but think genetics do play because i work to not be fat but i have plenty of friends that has never lifted a weight or do cardio and is fit like any other typical asian kid. i think it might have to do with personality too, im the most relaxed guy on earth my friends tell me. but just like some must take medication or do something for their health issues, i think of it in a similar way. unfair perhaps but life aint fair and gotta do with what we got. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46671 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's more unhealthy to be 5 lbs. underweight than it is to be 50 lbs overweight. neither group should be made fun of or stigmatized as that's rude and bad and not acceptable. anorexia is horribly unhealthy, in fact it's probably the single most unhealthy thing you can do to yourself. the strain on your heart caused by anorexia is far greater than the strain caused by love handles. Seriously? What's the relationship there? Surely that's not a constant rate (being 200 pounds overweight couldn't possibly be better for you than being 20 pounds underweight, right?), is it? Could you post a source please? I'm rather incredulous, but I've never thought about it before, so I'd like to read up on some stats  | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:08 antelope591 wrote: Kids being obese is 100% the parents fault.....and these are the same parents who will protest against these campaigns to help spare their kids precious feelings then go out and buy them McDonalds for lunch every day. Maybe if you fed your child healthy food and made them go out and exercise instead of sitting around watching TV all day they wouldn't be fucking obese. To me obesity will NEVER be socially acceptable beacuse its pretty much 100% the person's choice. All the bullshit about genetics....maybe 1% are truly obese because of genes. If you have the dedication you can lose the weight. I'm not talking about obese as in a few pounds overweight or people that put on some weight when they're older. I'm talking about the people who are walking around at 300 pounds at 30 years old blaming the world for their obesity then passing their shitty habits on to their kids. These people deserve whatever's coming to them. Stop and think about the bolded part for a second. Something that is 100% a personal choice that doesn't affect you. And because of this you think it isn't socially acceptable. I hope you're beginning to feel as disturbed as I am with what you just wrote. Personally, by the way, the main issue for me here is the fact that it is getting put out there that being fat is okay. It really isn't, and people riding easy because society deems it insensitive to point out something to them is just counter productive. You people disturb me. Yea, being fat is unhealthy, and we should educate everyone on this fact, but where the fuck did you get the power to tell someone that it isn't ok for them to make the conscious decision to be happy being fat, knowing the health risks? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: the only reason why you can't find healthy foods in a supermarket is because you aren't looking. wtf? I weigh 150 and a medium feels like a baby shirt on me. maybe you're just skinny as hell? edit: and I buy my shirts at the places that only sell generic sizes. i think you're either making stuff up or you're a twig. I remember buying skiing clothes and all the clothes had the size for Europeans and for the US, clothes that are S in Europe were XS in the US, M in Europe was S in the US etc etc. I don't know if it's the same for all clothes but I found it pretty funny | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:25 Notfragile wrote: You are quite an excuisite example of why you must not quote stuff you don't understand. Let me say this as simple as I can, without quotes you cannot even comprehend. Because I do comprehend what you said there. You don't. A standard meal has sugars equal to the amount there is in the raw materials it's made from. That's what we eat here in Europe. A fast food meal, or in general an American type of quick meal (pizza, pre-cooked frozen food, etc) has added sugars plus the ones of the raw materials. That's where the unhealthiness of the fructose syrup comes into play. Not that fructose is bad. But if I eat something that contains sugars (ex. honey, fruits, root vegetables) with my meal and you do that too, you will have taken in vastly more sugars than you should. Because your body is regulated by evolutionary means to make you feel "full" when the appropriate amount of nutrients is taken in. When you add sugars like crazy to everything you eat (usually by the suryp) then when you are feeling "full", you have taken in more sugars/calories than you should. Here we don't add sugar to tomato sauce. We don't use ketchup. It is disgustingly sweet. American people have generated a tolerance to the sweet taste and there was a fine little experiment conducted by reddit users, where they tried to prepare their own meals so that they could avoid extra sugar input. The results were astonishing even for them: a) It was damn hard to eat something without added sugars in the US. They had to prepare almost everything themselves (like the rest of the world does) b) In the start of a weeklong "sugar detox" they thought the foods tasted awefully bitter and bland. c) By the end of the experiment they said the foods tasted just like before (when it had a lot of sugar in it) because the developed sugar tolerance in taste was gone, only now they could appreciate more subtle flavours and they ate a lot of less calories per meal. Thank you for reaffirming the point I've been making all along, that it is the quantity of the substance that matters and not the substance itself. I've been saying that from the very beginning and people have been arguing the point with me. Although I would have preferred that you didn't misrepresent my argument and suggest that I'm ignorant and don't comprehend what I'm saying. In the future please try reading a person's entire argument before criticizing them. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Seriously? What's the relationship there? Surely that's not a constant rate (being 200 pounds overweight couldn't possibly be better for you than being 20 pounds underweight, right?), is it? Could you post a source please? I'm rather incredulous, but I've never thought about it before, so I'd like to read up on some stats i don't know, but i'm positive that being 20 lbs underweight is horrendously bad for your body and your heart. in fact, you will probably live a lot longer being 200 lbs overweight than you will being 20 lbs underweight. go look up the health risks associated with being underweight. i remember reading it somewhere in a health book and i asked my doctor and he agreed that in most cases it is much better for you to be overweight than underweight. obviously neither is ideal, but being underweight means that no matter what you cannot be getting enough nutrients to run your body. being overweight, you probably are getting enough nutrients, but are just getting too much. | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:29 jinorazi wrote: even when i was a basketball player throughout middle and high school i was still "chubby". i know skinny girls that eat more than me. i do work out on daily bases but i have to keep working to stay not overly fat while i know guys that chugs down beer, never work out and eat all they want and stay skinny and those that blame parents, i grew up never eaten a pizza, fries, or hamburger until i was in my teens and if i asked for seconds while i was a kid, my mom would give me the stare of death and i cannot eat any more because i was chubby. i grew up eating kimchee and its variants, rarely meat (korean bbq, pork belly) and my mom made of sure of diet because i was chubby. i can't help but think genetics do play because i work to not be fat but i have plenty of friends that has never lifted a weight or do cardio and is fit like any other typical asian kid. i think it might have to do with personality too, im the most relaxed guy on earth my friends tell me. but just like some must take medication or do something for their health issues, i think of it in a similar way. unfair perhaps but life aint fair and gotta do with what we got. No I think that genetics definitely plays in. I know someone who participates in all kinds of sports and activities, and she still is rather chubby. But the thing is, just chubby. What I am really concerned about is major obesity and stuff like + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_V5pM_bIduTQ/TDYrvkrtmvI/AAAAAAAAAIM/IIm0W-0fWnk/s1600/obesity+in+america.jpg) That is repulsive, and there is no excuse for that. But for someone genetically inclined, it is a much more sensitive and delicate situation. I'm not doctor (just the offspring of one  ), but I am willing to bet that you are healthier than those guys chugging beer and eating everything. Then it just becomes an issue of self image. | ||
|
KainiT
Austria392 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote: it's more unhealthy to be 5 lbs. underweight than it is to be 50 lbs overweight. neither group should be made fun of or stigmatized as that's rude and bad and not acceptable. anorexia is horribly unhealthy, in fact it's probably the single most unhealthy thing you can do to yourself. the strain on your heart caused by anorexia is far greater than the strain caused by love handles. most of the things you said here are either just wrong or not based on facts at all | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:36 KainiT wrote: most of the things you said here are either just wrong or not based on facts at all 1. it's more unhealthy to be 5bs underweight than 50 lbs overweight. (based on facts, but could be wrong) 2. neither group should be made fun of (i hope you aren't trying to say this is wrong. but you're right, it's not "based on facts") 3. anorexia is horribly unhealthy (based on facts and absolutely true) 4. it's probably the single most unhealthy thing you could do to yourself (ok, well i guess shooting yourself in the head might be more unhealthy... still, this is based on facts and is mostly true) 5. the strain on your heart caused by anorexia is far greater than the strain caused by love handles (based on facts and is mostly true) ....i guess pick the ones you don't like and argue em | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:30 Stratos_speAr wrote: Stop and think about the bolded part for a second. Something that is 100% a personal choice that doesn't affect you. And because of this you think it isn't socially acceptable. I hope you're beginning to feel as disturbed as I am with what you just wrote. You people disturb me. Yea, being fat is unhealthy, and we should educate everyone on this fact, but where the fuck did you get the power to tell someone that it isn't ok for them to make the conscious decision to be happy being fat, knowing the health risks? Okay. I guess I mispoke, and you misinterpreted. I do not mean that anyone who is fat is evil and should be abolished. What I despise is that no one is being frank. There is all this political correctness to get around, and by the time you can actually get a decent message across it is hardly understandable by the average person. Another thing is that many people who are obese may claim they are completely happy with their weight, but it is like asking a drunk man if he is happy. They may be eating to cope, and the happiness may just be a passing thing which is a product of this food they are over-consuming. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:36 KainiT wrote: most of the things you said here are either just wrong or not based on facts at all He may not be right on the numbers but being anorexic can be life threatening and is often more dangerous than someone being overweight. Naturally you have to look at each individual case but starving yourself and not getting proper nurishment does horrible things to your body. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 07 2012 03:34 sc2superfan101 wrote: i don't know, but i'm positive that being 20 lbs underweight is horrendously bad for your body and your heart. in fact, you will probably live a lot longer being 200 lbs overweight than you will being 20 lbs underweight. go look up the health risks associated with being underweight. i remember reading it somewhere in a health book and i asked my doctor and he agreed that in most cases it is much better for you to be overweight than underweight. obviously neither is ideal, but being underweight means that no matter what you cannot be getting enough nutrients to run your body. being overweight, you probably are getting enough nutrients, but are just getting too much. Do you even read your own posts? How did "i don't know, but i'm positive... i remember reading somewhere... i asked my doctor..." sound like good sources to you? Have you ever been to high school? Cite something, quote something, don't FEED US YOUR BULLSHIT. If you don't actually know what you are talking about READ UP and SHUT UP. | ||
| ||
