A new attraction at Walt Disney World that used overweight superheroes to teach about the dangers of childhood obesity has closed less than a month after its unofficial opening for retooling following accusations that it introduces the idea of body shame to a whole new generation of Americans concerned about their weight.
We get idiotic political correct bodies such as the "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" (LOL, WTF, when is fat a good thing?):
In this regard, a statement was recently released by the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, in which it was claimed that, "We're appalled to learn that Disney, a traditional hallmark of childhood happiness and joy, has fallen under the shadow of negativity and discrimination".
We have stupid doctors:
Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
My opinion Just like we have political correctness in France ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316088 ), where the govt could do better fixing debt problems rather than spend more money re-printing documents and changing data entries.
Now, in America, one of the fattest nations in the world gets red taped by political correct fat bodies. It's so sad that when a corporation makes a positive step, it gets shut down by a minority group (and I sincerely hope that it's a minority group).
Many parents want to teach their kids healthy eating habits but they are not helped by the negative food images (see the child food-porn link) in the media and the efforts of ridiculous organisations that stymie positive reinforcement.
Everything seems to be politicized in the U.S. and I think that is greatly harming the country. How someone can view Obesity in a positive light or think that such displays hurts people feelings and shouldn't be acceptable I can't understand. Reality is harsh and sometimes tough love is called for. It is a major major problem in the U.S. and is only getting worse it needs to be dealt with.
Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
It's not like obese kids are forced by Walt Disney to go to fat camps or anything. "[...] teaching about dangers of childhood obesity [...]" sounds extremely positive and not like they want to instill hate in the general population against obese kids. Those people in that organisation National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance are totally getting this wrong. Obese kids aren't being discriminated against with this Walt Disney World attraction, they are actually being favored.
It's probably the most horrible thing western society has to deal today with, political correctness, be it related with racism, sexism, elitism etc. Am I suppose to call a black french guy an african-american ? Am I supposed to say an arab is less probable to bomb something ?( It's not their fault, it's like blaming a dog bitting back that has been bitten ) Am I supposed to etc etc etc etc etc. What has happened today is the pussification of the world .. c word , n word , f word , Saying the "N" word, which sounds 999 times more horrible than the initial doesn't make you not a racism, most people who say this on tv are probably raging racists.
If a fat kid is fat he should be bullied, it's normal for member of a society to pick on the weak one, plus over the discomfort that he gets when he is bullied mb he stops eating bad food and start a diet with some exercise, I'd rather be humiliated for 1 year to be healthy, than be left alone and have a shitty life, dying at 40.
It's not fat people, it's the height-to-width-rationally challenged.
I think it should be okay to teach someone that something is dangerous when it is, in fact, dangerous. In my eyes, it's as silly as saying that schools are not allowed to teach the pupils that people with Asian genes descend from people from Asia, because this stigmatizes Asian people as someone who's not from the Western hemisphere or something equally silly (I sure hope this was a hypothetical example!)
zzz.....seriouly i know what your talking about its like the same thing here in aus also apparently we're fatter than u guys....seriouly retarded if they think its trying to promote "body shame" when they are clearly just trying to keep everyone not over weight, which doesnt mean u need to be supermodel thin, u just need to be "normal" in the sense that u arent overweight "which does lead to some serious health problems" or that u are underweight, god seriouly wtf is with people these days someone is just trying to help everyone out, next thing u know we cant give free food to the poor becasue it "labels" them as poor, oh opps i should say "needy" or someother politcal thing....zzz....retarded....
Lol, the picture described as "Early Junk Food Training: Baby eating McDonald's Junk Food" in one of the pictures I'm 99% sure is actually just a kid's doll:
Speaking seriously though, this is ridiculous. Even if some people are genetically more likely to be fat, the simple laws of the universe is that it is physically impossible to put on weight if you eat the same calories as you expend. Eating healthily and doing exercise is a formula that can work for everyone, there is no excuse.
"The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
I don't really know what to say about this article, it's so horrendously written
Critics claimed that the generally exhibit reinforced the stereotypes that children suffering from are generally have deprived eating patterns. Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
What is that, I don't even.
I'd like to see more evidence that it is 'political correctness' that is hindering the campaign against advertisement directed at children. I can see the link between the disney world exhibit and the possibility that political correctness is causing trouble for such exhibits, but I don't understand why you believe it is political correctness that is holding back the campaign against advertisement directed at children.
On March 06 2012 16:34 Hairy wrote: Lol, the picture described as "Early Junk Food Training: Baby eating McDonald's Junk Food" in one of the pictures I'm 99% sure is actually just a kid's doll:
Speaking seriously though, this is ridiculous. Even if some people are genetically more likely to be fat, the simple laws of the universe is that it is physically impossible to put on weight if you eat the same calories as you expend. Eating healthily and doing exercise is a formula that can work for everyone, there is no excuse.
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
My unfounded theory behind all of this: a significant number of parents whose children are obese are the ones running the show and the ones with the money and the voice. They feel the need to shelter their children, who are overweight and eat unhealthy/live a sedentary life, behind their lack of parental discipline/control.
I'm in my late 20's, and to be honest this is just one instance of an increasingly growing trend in today's younger generation/parents. I see it first hand with cousins and close family friends who have kids: they let their children eat/do what they want when they want with no consideration of their health just so they don't have to put up with the hard work of raising their kids properly.
People are becoming way too fucking sensitive nowadays hot diggity damnit.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
On March 06 2012 16:30 bOneSeven wrote: It's probably the most horrible thing western society has to deal today with, political correctness, be it related with racism, sexism, elitism etc. Am I suppose to call a black french guy an african-american ? Am I supposed to say an arab is less probable to bomb something ?( It's not their fault, it's like blaming a dog bitting back that has been bitten ) Am I supposed to etc etc etc etc etc. What has happened today is the pussification of the world .. c word , n word , f word , Saying the "N" word, which sounds 999 times more horrible than the initial doesn't make you not a racism, most people who say this on tv are probably raging racists.
If a fat kid is fat he should be bullied, it's normal for member of a society to pick on the weak one, plus over the discomfort that he gets when he is bullied mb he stops eating bad food and start a diet with some exercise, I'd rather be humiliated for 1 year to be healthy, than be left alone and have a shitty life, dying at 40.
After reading this I get a sudden urge to donate to the Fat Acceptance Triumvirate.
Political corectness can go too far. Preventing bullying isn't politcal corectness.
Bullying doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't make you harder. Bullying isn't about fighting with the other person, it is about breaking him down completely and making him aware of the fact that is an inferior in every way. It doesn't produce stronger people, it has a negative influence on everything from self perception to intelligence.
Being fat is a choice, just like being religious. Ergo, it deserves no special treatment. Only the vast minority of fat people (I believe it was 2%) are fat as a result of their affliction.
As for the Arab comment, those are the times I am happy there is political corectness. I don't care much for people that compare others to animals and say that they cant help themselves because what should you expect, they are only arabs.
[QUOTE]Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism. [\QUOTE] This is especially irritating to me technically correct but puts off the important shit off to the side like it's less important than the side factors.
Also I'm thinking of starting a National Association to Advance Unfit Acceptance any takers?
Seriously nothing personal against fat people but this is dumb, being fat is a NEGATIVE thing apart from you float better and will live longer without food what are the benefits? The negatives are nigh uncountable. Why accept being fat when you can change it for the undeniable better? (excluding people who are genetically predisposed to being fat some shit to do with epi-genetics apparently saying one of those guys doesn't have to be fat is like saying hemophiliacs don't have to bleed loose 10 times the amount of blood as is normal)
EDIT: Disney world probably isn't the best place for such an attraction but still...
On March 06 2012 16:42 Bayyne wrote: My unfounded theory behind all of this: a significant number of parents whose children are obese are the ones running the show and the ones with the money and the voice. They feel the need to shelter their children, who are overweight and eat unhealthy/live a sedentary life, behind their lack of parental discipline/control.
I'm in my late 20's, and to be honest this is just one instance of an increasingly growing trend in today's younger generation/parents. I see it first hand with cousins and close family friends who have kids: they let their children eat/do what they want when they want with no consideration of their health just so they don't have to put up with the hard work of raising their kids properly.
People are becoming way too fucking sensitive nowadays hot diggity damnit.
What a load of reactionary nonsense. How many problems amongst kids, in the past, have been attributed to a degradation of morals or parenting standards? Disorderly youth, promiscuity, drinking culture, teen pregnancy - everyone is quick to blame a lack of moral standards, in every generation people like to believe that the generation before it was in some way more sensible or more morally pure. But this idea is fruitless - it doesn't make any progress to tell parents or kids to 'toughen up' there is a better explanation and a better solution that might actually work.
Parents need to be better educated about the importance of proper nutrition, it's possible that young parents in the United States still believe pizza is a vegetable. And advertisement towards children really has to stop, it's completely fucking absurd that it continues in this day and age
I agree with Zalz but for being fat being a choice. It is but only up to a certain level. It is proven certain food produces addiction. Also fast way of living often doesn't leave a person with a lot of choice. Also depression is running rampant and food is a prefered remedy for many people.
On March 06 2012 16:30 bOneSeven wrote: It's probably the most horrible thing western society has to deal today with, political correctness, be it related with racism, sexism, elitism etc. Am I suppose to call a black french guy an african-american ? Am I supposed to say an arab is less probable to bomb something ?( It's not their fault, it's like blaming a dog bitting back that has been bitten ) Am I supposed to etc etc etc etc etc. What has happened today is the pussification of the world .. c word , n word , f word , Saying the "N" word, which sounds 999 times more horrible than the initial doesn't make you not a racism, most people who say this on tv are probably raging racists.
If a fat kid is fat he should be bullied, it's normal for member of a society to pick on the weak one, plus over the discomfort that he gets when he is bullied mb he stops eating bad food and start a diet with some exercise, I'd rather be humiliated for 1 year to be healthy, than be left alone and have a shitty life, dying at 40.
Bullying solves nothing, really. I'm a big guy and people used to make fun of me until I started dropping people for fucking with myself and others.
The only way to solve obesity is to educate people. "Hey, you're gonna die early if you don't drop weight" works just fine for me. Slap that shit on billboards for all I care.
edit: and, yeah, political correctness has gone overboard.
On March 06 2012 16:30 bOneSeven wrote: It's probably the most horrible thing western society has to deal today with, political correctness, be it related with racism, sexism, elitism etc. Am I suppose to call a black french guy an african-american ? Am I supposed to say an arab is less probable to bomb something ?( It's not their fault, it's like blaming a dog bitting back that has been bitten ) Am I supposed to etc etc etc etc etc. What has happened today is the pussification of the world .. c word , n word , f word , Saying the "N" word, which sounds 999 times more horrible than the initial doesn't make you not a racism, most people who say this on tv are probably raging racists.
If a fat kid is fat he should be bullied, it's normal for member of a society to pick on the weak one, plus over the discomfort that he gets when he is bullied mb he stops eating bad food and start a diet with some exercise, I'd rather be humiliated for 1 year to be healthy, than be left alone and have a shitty life, dying at 40.
After reading this I get a sudden urge to donate to the Fat Acceptance Triumvirate.
Political corectness can go too far. Preventing bullying isn't politcal corectness.
Bullying doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't make you harder. Bullying isn't about fighting with the other person, it is about breaking him down completely and making him aware of the fact that is an inferior in every way. It doesn't produce stronger people, it has a negative influence on everything from self perception to intelligence.
Being fat is a choice, just like being religious. Ergo, it deserves no special treatment. Only the vast minority of fat people (I believe it was 2%) are fat as a result of their affliction.
As for the Arab comment, those are the times I am happy there is political corectness. I don't care much for people that compare others to animals and say that they cant help themselves because what should you expect, they are only arabs.
This guy is totally right, teenage boys are evil geniuses who are masters in the field of human psychology.
About the arab thing, they could've been romanians, if USA would have crippled our infants and killed many of our civilians, expect us to bomb ure country.
So basically declaring everything that was, by nature, intended to push natural selection forward is now something we should ban because it is "politically incorrect"?
I would actually suggest to go after parents who let their kids become obese and jail them for physically abusing their children. That's where the real problem is.
I don't get the point of fucking something up and then bitching at other people that they have to tolerate your mistakes because it's the politically correct thing to do.
On March 06 2012 17:01 -Archangel- wrote: I agree with Zalz but for being fat being a choice. It is but only up to a certain level. It is proven certain food produces addiction. Also fast way of living often doesn't leave a person with a lot of choice. Also depression is running rampant and food is a prefered remedy for many people.
In that case getting fat is a result and not a cause.
As for food producing addiction... yeah, that's true and also intended by nature. Is it being abused by people who want to make money? Yeah, sure. Go after them, fine by me. But that doesn't mean whoever got addicted to it has morale high ground and is free of failure.
If you get fat from being addicted to certain foods it's again a result but not a cause. Like if I'd be happy smoking cigarettes I shouldn't bitch about getting lung cancer down the road either.
On March 06 2012 16:40 Defacer wrote: Imagine this scenario:
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
The thing that it might introduce guilt and such into a day might exactly be why this is a really really good thing to keep and preserve: It will have the impact it needs to make people remember.
The problem about prohibiting this is that people make it shameful to be fat and do something about it, people need to be able to talk about it to be able to deal with it, if politicians thought about it they would know that the right answer would be to un-tabu-ize being fat and realize you have to deal with it and stop shoving it under the carpet.
Really good initiative by Disney, I'm sad to see it hindered
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
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.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
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.
So obese people are equally as healthy as non obese people because... well you didn't say... but I would SURE love to know because that would contradict pretty much everything I've ever heard about obese people...
Being obese is a choice so much as alcoholism is a choice so much as smoking cigarettes is a choice.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
I feel like everyone needs to grasp at the root of this problem, and that is the lack of nutrition and exercise amongst children. Bullying won't make kids less likely to eat candy, it makes them comfort eat. It doesn't make kids want to exercise, it makes them want to commit suicide.
The way to deal with this problem is not to try and change attitudes amongst kids that are already fat, it's to change attitudes amongst parents and schools. There needs to be a greater understanding about nutrition and greater encouragement to get ALL kids involved in sport on a level that isn't hyper-focused on the competitive aspect (as is the focus throughout most of school, at least in my country). The solution is to prevent obesity altogether, because after so long of being fat, a person can 'snowball' into obesity with no turning back and it isn't really their fault, it's how they've been brought up.
In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with giving some support to kids and adults suffering from obesity, like the association above is attempting to.
Well if we are going to pick on fat kids to make them stop being fat how about left handed people so they write with the right hand like proper people. Perhaps we can stop all those silly folks with speech impediments by just picking on them enough.
Making people feel horrid won't make them a better person, it can it can also cause them to shut themselves off from the world or decide to go all Charles Whitman on folks. In short, not a good idea.
I can get what Disney is trying to do, I really do but really? Why is a theme park supposed to solve/point out problems? It's a bloody place to have fun and enjoy something that isn't life for a day. It's just.. out of place.
What it ultimately comes down to is, you're just not supposed to judge people, on the basis of anything. From crack addicts to ex-cons, you are not supposed to discriminate. You are not supposed to care about people's character, or think of your judgement as objective in nature, much less try to actually guess at people's character by their choice of behaviour. Fatness is poor health, and as such demonstrates a lack of rational interest in one's own well-being, which is a major turn-off, much like with hygiene. People just don't like being judged, whether they deserve it or not.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
have you been an alcoholic, a smoker or obese? if not, you really dont know what you're talking about. none of these is a choice like "today i'm going for a walk".
Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
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.
So obese people are equally as healthy as non obese people because... well you didn't say... but I would SURE love to know because that would contradict pretty much everything I've ever heard about obese people...
Being obese is a choice so much as alcoholism is a choice so much as smoking cigarettes is a choice.
Yea, and what you've heard is bullshit. This idea that people just choose to be fat. Bodies are different. From my own experience I know plenty of fat people who eat a shitton healthier (and in moderation) than I have ever ate in my entire life (I grew up eating nothing but chips, poptarts, and french fries, no fucking joke. People pointed to that recent article about the English lady who ate nothing but chicken nuggets her entire life and told me "lololol that's you!"), but I'm skinny as fuck, don't work out whatsoever. I know that is simply an anecdotal example, but the point being is that bodies are different. Skinny people get diabetes, fat people get diabetes.
And addictive behavior is not a choice as well. Some people are just prone to them. The choice becomes whether to engage in them. And it can be a hard choice for those with those tendencies. More anecdotal evidence, so grain of salt and all, but I know a dude who wont smoke/drink/is hardcore straightedge. When asked why he is his response is because because he has an addictive personality and he knows that if he engages in any of those things it'll take him down a bad road. Point being again ... bodies are different.
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
It's a counter-agenda: to defend the right to judge others in general. Perhaps this issue is the right place to fight the battle, perhaps it is not.
Definitely going overboard here. This over sensitivity to political correctness is re-inforcing a growing number of problems in society. While it is perfectly fine to be politically correct in situations where the person has no choice, (i.e. race), but when it involves re-inforcing negative choices we make, we are saying it is ok to keep our unhealthy habits, "it's not our fault we like to eat a lot" or some other bullshit like that. While I agree that Disney World might not be the best place, this attitude is much more damaging than making people feel a little uncomfortable about their bodies.
A huge part of the problem is the generation of parents. I was raised by parents perhaps a little older than most, and also a little more conservative. I am quite proud of this now when i look around and see many parents today. Whether it may be rooted in financial status, etc. parents aren't disciplining their kids and allowing young kids many freedoms that are above their age. Perhaps they want to be "cool" parents, or maybe parents aren't around as much these days. But many kids aren't getting positive support from parents leading them to develop bad habits. And of course parents are quick to get angry and blame others for their children's problems, taking absolutely no responsibility at all...
/end rant
Seriously though there needs to be a strong, logical voice stating these points on a global scale
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
God I love you.
Edit: actually though, doctors will say it's your fault you got fat, which is part of the problem.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
actually I'm pretty sure the new consensus is that it's not that simplistic.
If we have somebody whom eating next to nothing and exercising almost all day does not help loosing weight, I think humanity has finally found its first perpetum mobile!
edit: Anyways, I got nothing against people being overweight, in fact I myself am a bit. However I got something against people finding cheap excuses for what I think is just their lazyness and lack of willpower (and no, being overweight does not mean you are lazy and lack willpower, but finding cheap excuses is).
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
have you been an alcoholic, a smoker or obese? if not, you really dont know what you're talking about. none of these is a choice like "today i'm going for a walk".
Bullshit. I was obese but have since lost over 50 pounds last year, and I'm still working hard towards losing more. My dad was a chronic smoker who now quit because he found the motivation to do so. Sure it's fucking hard to give up smoking, eating or alcohol, but it's still a choice. You just have to work your ass off (no pun intended) to get where you want to go.
so we are supposed to encourage people to be fat? especially kids? we shouldnt shame someone for being fat at the same time shouldnt give them the illusion that its a good thing. its unhealthy. When i have kids im not going to ignore their health in fear that they will feel bad about being fat. Sure acceptance is great but we should accept people that are different not accept EVERYTHING. what next? should we stop the antidrug campaigns because they make druggies feel bad? maybe we should stop condeming jerks because it makes them feel bad. We are raising a generation of spoiled brats because we forgot that we rebuke our youth for their own good. Genetics can play into people becoming alcoholics or drug addicts but it doesnt make it ok. Sure some people's genetics will make it easier for them to get fat and it sucks that they have to work harder to stay healthy but we all have our shortcomings. We just need to work harder to better ourselves instead of giving up.
On March 06 2012 16:40 Defacer wrote: Imagine this scenario:
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
have you been an alcoholic, a smoker or obese? if not, you really dont know what you're talking about. none of these is a choice like "today i'm going for a walk".
Bullshit. I was obese but have since lost over 50 pounds last year, and I'm still working hard towards losing more. My dad was a chronic smoker who now quit because he found the motivation to do so. Sure it's fucking hard to give up smoking, eating or alcohol, but it's still a choice. You just have to work your ass off (no pun intended) to get where you want to go.
like you said... IT'S FUCKING HARD. and statistically almost no one can change these habbits.
"bullshit", i only asked whether you've been in such a situation yourself. ohhhh such a bullshit question. god you're full of shit. hope you gain all your weight again like i did <3
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
So just because someone's fat their life sucks? Why's that? Is it because they really are unhealthy, or is it because everyone THINKS they're unhealthy?
And as I posted earlier, what about me? I eat plenty of bullshit grease, sit at my computer all day. I'm sure most of these posters do as well. How are we different from those who are fat?
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So you're promoting anorexia?
Omg, I hate it when people do this in an argument. :p
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
actually I'm pretty sure the new consensus is that it's not that simplistic.
Make a statement with no explanation or backing... while denying a basic mathematical equation.
Math doesn't lie. Statistics can be misused but the math does not lie.
If you eat more than your body needs you gain weight. If you eat less than it needs you lose weight. It is that simple. All the excuses in the world don't change that. If you are controlling what you eat then you have a choice to put in only what you need.
I have two fat sisters, I am not fat. I have heard all the excuses. They eat more than they need and until they want to change they will stay fat. Anyone who tries to say it is more complex is just trying to justify why they eat more than they need. I am personally sick of the excuses.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
Well there are pretty huge differences in people's metabolisms. I have a skinny little Chinese Canadian friend who always orders two full meals when we go out to eat. doesn't exercise and managed to eat four quarter pounders in one sitting. If I ate like that I'd put on a huge amount of weight.
But yeah, the vast majority of people who are obese/overweight are eating too much junk. Nobody seems to have any problem giving smokers a hard time so I'm not sure why fat people shouldn't also be given some tough love. The most laughable thing to me was when the US government decided to classify pizza as a vegetable.
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So you're promoting anorexia?
Omg, I hate it when people do this in an argument. :p
If you hate it, then you probably like to strangle kittens.
On subject, the parents of the rare kids who are fat because of an illness or genetics should just not bring their children to that particular attraction ? There are plenty of activities to do in Disney Land.
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So you're promoting anorexia?
I advocate literacy, and you sir are a shining example of why we need to focus on reading skills in this day and age. Improving yourself, and leading a healthy lifestyle are exactly the opposite of anorexia. Please don't post such trash anymore, low quality posts really arent appreciated
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Having looked into the matter myself some time ago i can say that a vast majority of fat people have noone to blame but themselves.Yes people are born with different bodies, some have very high metabolism and some people just seem to put on weight faster than others but i'd estimate from what i know that anywhere between 90 and 99% of fat people could have avoided it and looked just like the rest of us by making the right decisions regarding their food and their exercise.
What is really tiring is people looking for any defense they can for their dumb lifestyle, science report found that some people burn food faster than others? Every fat person jumps on it and claim to have a shitty body that isn't doing it's job, no, that aint true, you're just eating wrong and not moving around enough.
People who bring metabolism into the discussion are silly. Its not about comparing yourself to anyone else. Your PERSONAL intake should be equal to or less than your PERSONAL requirement to maintain or lose weight.
Its not a case of that guy ate 50 hamburgers and looks good, so I should be able to as well. How stupid can you be.
On March 06 2012 16:25 lisward wrote: Often a times these fat advocates go about using 'be happy with your own body' as an excuse to not improve yourself. Sure maybe genetically speaking you're more inclined to gain weight easily, but don't use that as an excuse for leading an unhealthy lifestyle.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
So you're promoting anorexia?
Omg, I hate it when people do this in an argument. :p
When did he ever say anything about anorexia?
Granted I'll agree it's a low blow, but I honestly don't feel bad about it since he didn't say other than "I agree."
I'm just amazed at how all these posters think they can assume the lifestyle choices of fat people based solely on the fact their fat. Simply assuming they all eat McDonald's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and that they never exert any form of physical labor. It's fucking disgusting, pathetic, and stereotypical.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
have you been an alcoholic, a smoker or obese? if not, you really dont know what you're talking about. none of these is a choice like "today i'm going for a walk".
Bullshit. I was obese but have since lost over 50 pounds last year, and I'm still working hard towards losing more. My dad was a chronic smoker who now quit because he found the motivation to do so. Sure it's fucking hard to give up smoking, eating or alcohol, but it's still a choice. You just have to work your ass off (no pun intended) to get where you want to go.
like you said... IT'S FUCKING HARD. and statistically almost no one can change these habbits.
"bullshit", i only asked whether you've been in such a situation yourself. ohhhh such a bullshit question. god you're full of shit. hope you gain all your weight again like i did <3
i'm out guys. arguing is so no fun at all :p
The part where you said it's not a choice is the part that's bullshit. Something being hard doesn't make it impossible, doesn't mean you should just give up on trying. Hiding behind something "it's not a choice" is the problem here. You're just using that as a cop out to not try.
On March 06 2012 16:40 Defacer wrote: Imagine this scenario:
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
This guy gets it, it would have likely hurt Disney if they kept it for the exact reason imo. Also "American association for fat acceptation" or w.e it was called officially took the nr 1 spot on my "Americans... " list leaving vegetable pizza and the gun/pro war associations miles behind.
And if we are on the subject... why aren't kids thought the dangers of being overweight from a young age by school/parents in the first place if its such a big deal in the USA ?
On March 06 2012 18:15 Bobgrimly wrote: People who bring metabolism into the discussion are silly. Its not about comparing yourself to anyone else. Your PERSONAL intake should be equal to or less than your PERSONAL requirement to maintain or lose weight.
Its not a case of that guy ate 50 hamburgers and looks good, so I should be able to as well. How stupid can you be.
If you're referring to me, I wasn't using it as an excuse at all. I was just pointing it out as an observation. I really am amazed at how much my friend can eat and be completely skinny. It shows that variations in metabolism do exist- I can't really think of any other way to explain it as this guy doesn't exercise either.
Anyway I already said in my post that the vast majority of obese people are simply eating too much junk food so I don't know why you're getting so hostile.
On March 06 2012 18:15 Bobgrimly wrote: People who bring metabolism into the discussion are silly. Its not about comparing yourself to anyone else. Your PERSONAL intake should be equal to or less than your PERSONAL requirement to maintain or lose weight.
Its not a case of that guy ate 50 hamburgers and looks good, so I should be able to as well. How stupid can you be.
If you're referring to me, I wasn't using it as an excuse at all. I was just pointing it out as an observation. I really am amazed at how much my friend can eat and be completely skinny. It shows that variations in metabolism do exist- I can't really think of any other way to explain it as this guy doesn't exercise either.
Anyway I already said in my post that the vast majority of obese people are simply eating too much junk food so I don't know why you're getting so hostile.
Not hostile at you. Just my sisters use that excuse a lot. They got the "bad metabolism". But I see what they eat and know how they exercise... or don't.
Its not about metabolism. Yes that determines how much a person can eat without gaining weight but it doesn't stop you losing weight.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
This.
Man you don't really get it. The human body is designed to be used. The whole hormonal profile of a person who excercises is different and better than the one of the person sitting on his ass (no matter if fat or thin). Exhausting your body once per day or per two days contributes to increased serotonin levels. Aka, you feel happy. No, no trust me, tired but happy.
Informing children about obesity is the correct way to go. Except from the rare disorder / hormonal problem that forces one to be fat, it is a matter of choice and free will. I agree that it is not as simple as "eat less" because every body has a different pattern in its metabolism. And I agree that a few people may just eat junk food for their whole lives and never get fat, while others strive with daily excercise and good nutrition (and btw healty food tastes better). But that is exactly that. The exception. Rest of us gotta work for it. And it is worth every drop of sweat.
There is no reason to try and hide the truth from the children. Go fat = less self esteem = lost oportunities in life (usually). And a whole lot of health problems. It is not a social tabboo, obese people are everywhere (and we are talking about the US now, so...). But the kids and most importantly their parents must make a conscious decision to abort junk food. To cook for themselves healthy and to live, instead of trying to feel better by "fat accepting bullshit".
So get out there, exhaust your body every couple of days, while eating healthier and you will be amazed by how good you will feel. And after you do that teach your kids to do it as well. Shoving one's head in the sand (or lasagna ) does not eradicate the issue of both self esteem and health problems obese people have. Educating and therefore making people have more chances to do something about it, does help.
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
If i'm 100% wrong why is it two people can consume the same food, excercise a similar amount while one person is 20 pounds overweight and the other is in the healthy range and neither person has these "highly complicated health defects". Guess what like the doctors said there is obviously genetic factors and/or unknown factors at play here. Contrary to popular belief people aren't magically born all the same. I happend to have inherited a few extra genes that seem to increase intelligence. But you would think I was an asshole if i were to go around calling everyone else stupid. So how is it ok for normal weight people to go around calling overweight people fat. The reason Organizations to promote fat acceptance exist is to educate people that hold your beliefs in the latest scientific research. You seem really vested in being "right" but the irony in such a paradigm is funny.
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
If i'm 100% wrong why is it two people can consume the same food, excercise a similar amount while one person is 20 pounds overweight and the other is in the healthy range and neither person has these "highly complicated health defects". Guess what like the doctors said there is obviously genetic factors and/or unknown factors at play here. Contrary to popular belief people aren't magically born all the same. I happend to have inherited a few extra genes that seem to increase intelligence. But you would think I was an asshole if i were to go around calling everyone else stupid. So how is it ok for normal weight people to go around calling overweight people fat. The reason Organizations to promote fat acceptance exist is to educate people that hold your beliefs in the latest scientific research. You seem really vested in being "right" but the irony in such a paradigm is funny.
People have different needs. Everyone should eat as much as his body needs, not everyone should eat the same amount which is why some people gain weight when they eat 2 big macs, and others don't . If you eat more then your body needs, you gain weight, if you eat less, then you lose weight. It really is pretty simple.
On March 06 2012 16:40 Defacer wrote: Imagine this scenario:
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
This guy gets it, it would have likely hurt Disney if they kept it for the exact reason imo.
So what we've determined is that, as usual, political correctness has nothing to do with this particular story. Disney didn't like the idea for business reasons, they didn't want fat parents to stop taking their fat kids and their fat wallets to Disney World.
RE political correctness, see Stewart Lee for further details:
Political correctness is a force for good, it's just clumsy
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
If i'm 100% wrong why is it two people can consume the same food, excercise a similar amount while one person is 20 pounds overweight and the other is in the healthy range and neither person has these "highly complicated health defects".
That just means that the fat person is eating more than he needs while the thin person doesn't. Differen't people need differen't amount of calories, but needing to eat less is not an excuse to get fat. Instead they should be happy that their bodies manages to live on so little, it either makes your food expenses a whole lot less or it means that they can eat much better food for the same money.
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Except that you are 100% wrong. Barring some highly complicated health defect, it is biologically impossible to continue gaining fat when you consume low amounts of healthy, balanced foods and exercise daily.
It is true that you can't simply starve yourself to fitness. But if you get off your ass and actually use your body for what it was supposed to be used, you will not only lose excess fat but gain muscle and that is a medical and sports fact.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
If i'm 100% wrong why is it two people can consume the same food, excercise a similar amount while one person is 20 pounds overweight and the other is in the healthy range and neither person has these "highly complicated health defects". Guess what like the doctors said there is obviously genetic factors and/or unknown factors at play here. Contrary to popular belief people aren't magically born all the same. I happend to have inherited a few extra genes that seem to increase intelligence. But you would think I was an asshole if i were to go around calling everyone else stupid. So how is it ok for normal weight people to go around calling overweight people fat. The reason Organizations to promote fat acceptance exist is to educate people that hold your beliefs in the latest scientific research. You seem really vested in being "right" but the irony in such a paradigm is funny.
Wow... you lack basic understanding. If you eat more than YOU PERSONALLY need you will get fat. This isn't a myth or a theory... this is FACT.
Just because someone can eat more than you and not get fat doesn't mean you can eat the same amount. It means you need to find out what your LIMIT IS and only stay under it. Blows my mind you could write that paragraph as though you thought you were correct and with your genes for enhanced intelligence :-P
On March 06 2012 18:19 Aterons_toss wrote: And if we are on the subject... why aren't kids thought the dangers of being overweight from a young age by school/parents in the first place if its such a big deal in the USA ?
If they were, then no one would care if we demonized obese monsters in a theme park.
On March 06 2012 17:15 bOneSeven wrote: This guy is totally right, teenage boys are evil geniuses who are masters in the field of human psychology.
That is what bullying is about. Kids aren't experts on the human digestive track, that doesn't mean they can't feed themselves. Bullying doesn't harden people, it doesn't make them stronger, it never has.
The entire purpose of bullying is to break person down, not build them up. Did it never occur to you that bullying is a distinctly different word than conflict, argument or fight?
Bullying is like breaking a persons legs and telling them that they will be stronger for it. No they won't. Not everything that hurts you makes you stronger. Bullying doesn't make anyone stronger, it doesn't make fat people skinny.
The fact that you would even advocate it is testimony to your absence of even the most basic knowledge on bullying.
About the arab thing, they could've been romanians, if USA would have crippled our infants and killed many of our civilians, expect us to bomb ure country.
So? Now you have called Arabs and Romanians less than human. Creatures that can't be held responsible for their own actions because they aren't intelligent enough to react otherwise. All you have done is widen the scope of your racist net, not absolved its racism.
I don't recall any Jews blowing themselves up in a German restaurant. Revenge isn't good and people can't be absolved from their actions by some strange notion that they are lesser-humans that simply don't know any better than to lash out in violence.
It is the bigotry of low expectations. "Ooh, they aren't as intelligent as us, what do you expect from them?" MLK didn't command blood to be shed in revenge and he is remembered for it. He held himself to a higher standard. The same standard that should apply to everyone.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
The equation has been the same for aeons and aeons:
You can eat incredible unhealthy and still be thin if you exercise and don't eat too much. That doesn't mean you are actually healthy. On the opposite side someone can eat healthy food but eat to much and look fat while remaining relativly heatlhy.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
I don't think that people are offended by fat people, people however usually are offended by ignorant people. Fat people who blame their overweight on everything but themselves are ignorant.
People are going more and more overboard on the Political Correctness these days due to how easily you can sue people or organisations, especially in America which is infamous for people suing McDonalds for making them fat. This ridiculous greed and ease of which people can sue each other is making people need to be more and more careful over what they do and say.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
I don't think that people are offended by fat people, people however usually are offended by ignorant people. Fat people who blame their overweight on everything but themselves are ignorant.
Agreed. As are people who dismiss the genetic components of obesity. Obesity isn't 100% caused by laziness or 100% caused by genes, it's caused by a mixture of both
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
i don't think people get offended by fat people as much as they go: "omg why is this person so fat, if i was that fat I'd totally work on losing that weight, if he chooses not to he must be lazy and stupid or he just doesn't know he's fat" I think everyone should just be nicer towards other people, every person is different and you don't know what goes on in other people's heads so you shouldn't judge them.
This is all a travesty backed by McDonalds and other food corporations. People need to stop finding retarded excuses why their life sucks, they need to stop being insulted by objective criticism, stop whining, sitting around, watching commercials, buying shit they don't need and just start living. I'd argue that "living" in its true sense absolutely involves daily exhaustion due to exercise or at least copious amounts of sex.
This.
Man you don't really get it. The human body is designed to be used. The whole hormonal profile of a person who excercises is different and better than the one of the person sitting on his ass (no matter if fat or thin). Exhausting your body once per day or per two days contributes to increased serotonin levels. Aka, you feel happy. No, no trust me, tired but happy.
Informing children about obesity is the correct way to go. Except from the rare disorder / hormonal problem that forces one to be fat, it is a matter of choice and free will. I agree that it is not as simple as "eat less" because every body has a different pattern in its metabolism. And I agree that a few people may just eat junk food for their whole lives and never get fat, while others strive with daily excercise and good nutrition (and btw healty food tastes better). But that is exactly that. The exception. Rest of us gotta work for it. And it is worth every drop of sweat.
There is no reason to try and hide the truth from the children. Go fat = less self esteem = lost oportunities in life (usually). And a whole lot of health problems. It is not a social tabboo, obese people are everywhere (and we are talking about the US now, so...). But the kids and most importantly their parents must make a conscious decision to abort junk food. To cook for themselves healthy and to live, instead of trying to feel better by "fat accepting bullshit".
So get out there, exhaust your body every couple of days, while eating healthier and you will be amazed by how good you will feel. And after you do that teach your kids to do it as well. Shoving one's head in the sand (or lasagna ) does not eradicate the issue of both self esteem and health problems obese people have. Educating and therefore making people have more chances to do something about it, does help.
Love this post...
It's amazing how a little sun and a little sweat can blend together and make you feel so damn good.
Yes, there are people genetically inclined to gain more weight than others. But in America this cannot be the explanation. In essence they are all immigrant for the last couple hundred years or so. As far as I know the early settlers weren´t obese. Not everyone was allowed to immigrate. At times people allowed to immigrate were "sorted". Obese genes don´t come from nowhere. When obesity drastically increases in short time, let´s say less than 100 years, it friggin can´t be genetics. Genes need much more time to spread. You would have to explain that obese people reproduced way more than slim people. And I never heard anything like that.
On March 06 2012 19:07 Mataza wrote: Laughing here.
Yes, there are people genetically inclined to gain more weight than others. But in America this cannot be the explanation. In essence they are all immigrant for the last couple hundred years or so. As far as I know the early settlers weren´t obese. Not everyone was allowed to immigrate. At times people allowed to immigrate were "sorted". Obese genes don´t come from nowhere. When obesity drastically increases in short time, let´s say less than 100 years, it friggin can´t be genetics. It´s a problem of society.
Yep its the huge amounts of readily available high calorie food, plus laziness, plus genetics.
Humans have always had genes that allow us to gain fat fast, it was a huge boon to us in the past with the fickle nature of hunter gathering and primitive agriculture, now those same genes are working against us.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
How does drinking affect other people?
Drinking can affect other people, unless you drink alone locked up in your house, which is sad and most people don't.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
because it is an enormous financial strain to society not only rivaling but surpassing alcohol and smoking combined?
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
How does drinking affect other people?
if you drive your car into a group of people because you were drunk then you affected other people.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
because it is an enormous financial strain to society not only rivaling but surpassing alcohol and smoking combined?
Now, i probably wouldn't be called "fat" by most people, but i am a few kilograms overwieght (maybe 5-8). And looking at my relatives, im probably genetically inclined to gain weight fairly easily. That said, i would never, EVER, be insulted if someone told me my extra kgs were unhealthy... What the hell is wrong with people? Whats next? Alcholism can also be "caused" be genetic predisposition, should we not be allowed to tell them it is unhealthy?
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
because it is an enormous financial strain to society not only rivaling but surpassing alcohol and smoking combined?
Anyone who thinks obesity doesn't affect anyone else is fooling themselves. You require bigger and more beds, shortened life expectancy, increased of heart disease, diabetes etc etc. There is NOTHING good about being obese. The increased health burden not to mention the increased consumption is not good.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
How does drinking affect other people?
if you drive your car into a group of people because you were drunk then you affected other people.
That's not a direct effect of just being drunk, though.
If you're using that as an example, being fat affects other people indirectly as well. Fat people tire more easily, which makes them unreliable and a weak link in a number of activities (and less productive at work in general). They consume more food than an average human requires, while many other people starve. They put an unnecessary strain on welfare and health insurance systems that also struggle to cover the whole population.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
because it is an enormous financial strain to society not only rivaling but surpassing alcohol and smoking combined?
e: retardedly long google links tinyurlized. linking to google so skeptics can try finding their own proof that it's actually harmless genes that make them weigh 300lbs and that it really doesn't bother anyone. fwiw i'm all for personal choice be it drug use, overeating the fuck out of bacon, drinking yourself braindead or smoking til' you drop but let's just be honest about it being dumb, hedonistic, selfish and expensive to others moreso than you.
On March 06 2012 18:41 oldgregg wrote: I don't get why people get so offended by fat people. They're fat, who cares! How does it affect you?
Not everyone worries only about themselves.
People are inter-dependent and living in a healthy society is beneficial for everyone.
So shall we go round being dicks to smokers and skydivers and drinkers and stuntmen and anyone else who puts their own life at risk?
We're already being dicks to smokers and drinkers - in many countries there are very few places where you are allowed to smoke legally, and you're not allowed to do a lot of activities while drunk either (work, drive, etc).
Those 2 activities affect other people though. How does obesity affect anyone but yourself?
because it is an enormous financial strain to society not only rivaling but surpassing alcohol and smoking combined?
Those are three scientific studies conducted that show that obesity in the general public increases the cost of health care for everyone. Might not be able to read the whole publication, cause they are the original sources but at least you can read the abstract.
On March 06 2012 16:37 Gustis wrote: "The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance immediately condemned the exhibit..." How's that even possible to have such an association? Could anyone elaborate why this is not retarded?
as this thread shows, a majority of people seem to think it's ok to make fat people feel bad about themselves. someone even argued that fat people should be bullied until they start losing weight. lol. you really don't see how an association like that can make sense?
With extremely miniscule examples of real illnesses(hormone deficiencies etc.), obesity equals eating more calories than using up. In your sense, how come we don't have The National Association to Advance Alcoholism Acceptance or The National Association to Advance Cigarette Smoking Acceptance? Because just like the chronic alcoholics and smokers, the obese people are choosing to live an unhealthy and socially/economically damaging lifestyle not only for themselves, but for other people.
have you been an alcoholic, a smoker or obese? if not, you really dont know what you're talking about. none of these is a choice like "today i'm going for a walk".
Bullshit. I was obese but have since lost over 50 pounds last year, and I'm still working hard towards losing more. My dad was a chronic smoker who now quit because he found the motivation to do so. Sure it's fucking hard to give up smoking, eating or alcohol, but it's still a choice. You just have to work your ass off (no pun intended) to get where you want to go.
like you said... IT'S FUCKING HARD. and statistically almost no one can change these habbits.
"bullshit", i only asked whether you've been in such a situation yourself. ohhhh such a bullshit question. god you're full of shit. hope you gain all your weight again like i did <3
i'm out guys. arguing is so no fun at all :p
Wastes a lot of calories too, I imagine.
Edit: For the sake of continent equality, I demand that the mod who counted the european "it's not funny" responses in Rets (pretty hilarious) Mentoring trollthread now counts the american "you can't help being fat" excuses posts here.
"fat acceptance" blogs are one of the most hilarious things to read on the internet. Delusional people who believe doctors, scientists and anybody who raises awareness about obesity is out to get them, and do what they do out of hate. You see 400lbs+ landplanets in motorized scooters who claim they are healthy (not dead is the new healthy it seems). You see people eating more calories/day than olympic athletes talking about how unfair it is that their genetics are so bad, and that they cant do anything about it.
On March 06 2012 16:40 Defacer wrote: Imagine this scenario:
You happen to have a genetically fat kid. It happens. Some kids are just naturally big (imagine InControl as an eight year old).
You and your kid go to Disney World with a bunch of friends and their families to Disney World. It's your kid's dream, and even though Disney World is as expensive as fuck you want to be an awesome parent and give him/her the best, care-free, guilt-free day of their life.
Then you run into this feel-bad attraction.
I know, I know -- it's important to educate kids (and parents) about good nutrition. But if you're a parent, or have worked in the family attraction industry, basically you know the reason why you go to Disney World is because it's a safe environment that will make your kid happy as hell.
I don't really care about political correctness, but there's a time and place for making people question their lifestyle.
TLDR; Let fat kids have their special day in magically happy-sappy make-believe land. They have the rest of the year to feel shitty about themselves.
The thing that it might introduce guilt and such into a day might exactly be why this is a really really good thing to keep and preserve: It will have the impact it needs to make people remember.
The problem about prohibiting this is that people make it shameful to be fat and do something about it, people need to be able to talk about it to be able to deal with it, if politicians thought about it they would know that the right answer would be to un-tabu-ize being fat and realize you have to deal with it and stop shoving it under the carpet.
Really good initiative by Disney, I'm sad to see it hindered
I hear what you're saying, and I totally agree with the spirit of what Disney is trying to do.
That being said, being a parent is hard as hell. One of the few joys you get as a parent are the rare days that you get to make your kid's 'dream' happen. And for better or worse, going to Disney World is one of those dreams for American kids.
I hope Disney continues to raise awareness about nutrition -- but through books, short films, and other initiatives. I just think an exhibition at the happiest place on earth is a bad venue for it.
Edit: For the record, I'm speaking as a guy that has 7 years of experience designing and developing interactive exhibits and content for science centres. I'm hyper-conscientious of the limitations of the exhibit experience.
Thanks for the stats guys, it's good to see people actually backing their shit up. Ok so obesity is a scourge on our society. I still think there are better ways of dealing with this than just being dicks to fat people. Surely people need to be motivated and educated about health and obesity, not bullied. At the end of the day though it's their own choice what they do with their bodies and if they want to stuff themselves with donuts then we can't stop them
Regulating their society and acting to change it to suit their needs is mine and everyone's business.
Yes...your point? Why did you suddenly point towards the sky and scream that it is blue?
I said that people shouldn't impose themselves on strangers and be "worried" about their problems without consent. You argue that they should.
I'm sorry but there really shouldn't be any reason for you to suddenly lose track of this, frankly, very simple back and forth.
I'm not the one losing track here, considering you're the one unable to grasp simple inferences.
People aren't "strangers", they're members of my society on some level. It is my business as a citizen to regulate the society (by contributing my vote or getting involved in the process directly), and by extension the governing body of a society regulates the rules by which all people within it live.
These simple relationships require people to form and have an opinion on how other people should live and worry about issues that affect others.
On March 06 2012 19:46 GoTuNk! wrote: The real problem here is that people seem to think the government can tell Walt Disney what their exhibits can or can't be about. REALLY?
Really. It's called the government for a reason. Because it's created to govern over a territory.
gov·ern/ˈgəvərn/ Verb: Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people). Control, influence, or regulate (a person, action, or course of events).
On March 06 2012 19:46 GoTuNk! wrote: The real problem here is that people seem to think the government can tell Walt Disney what their exhibits can or can't be about. REALLY?
who thinks that? I haven't heard any talk about government involvement until you just brought it up
I find this very disturbing. Especially now that I think about it, I'm going to have to pay for a lot of fat people's insurance now. That's one huge reason why the rest of the world has such cheaper insurance and healthcare in general. Our system is clogged with smokers and obese people.
On the note of political correctness, what about being scientifically correct? Obesity is NOT good for you.
It's probably the most horrible thing western society has to deal today with, political correctness, be it related with racism, sexism, elitism etc. Am I suppose to call a black french guy an african-american ? Am I supposed to say an arab is less probable to bomb something ?( It's not their fault, it's like blaming a dog bitting back that has been bitten ) Am I supposed to etc etc etc etc etc. What has happened today is the pussification of the world .. c word , n word , f word , Saying the "N" word, which sounds 999 times more horrible than the initial doesn't make you not a racism, most people who say this on tv are probably raging racists.
I know a lot of "African Americans" living in the United States now that like to be called black Americans instead because they have been so heavily removed from their African heritage, but in general yes political correctness has been horribly abused. In my opinion we need to do away with anything that questions your race, sex etc.
On another note also, our government gives many subsidies to foods like high fructose corn syrup, which is a sugar substitute (being cheaper and having to use less to get the same taste). Another reason the rest of the world has an advantage when it comes to things like healthcare is because their governments are conscious of things that will hurt them and raise taxes on those things heavily, instead of just thinking of everyone having super cheap food.
Regulating their society and acting to change it to suit their needs is mine and everyone's business.
Yes...your point? Why did you suddenly point towards the sky and scream that it is blue?
I said that people shouldn't impose themselves on strangers and be "worried" about their problems without consent. You argue that they should.
I'm sorry but there really shouldn't be any reason for you to suddenly lose track of this, frankly, very simple back and forth.
I'm not the one losing track here, considering you're the one unable to grasp simple inferences.
People aren't "strangers", they're members of my society on some level. It is my business as a citizen to regulate the society (by contributing my vote or getting involved in the process directly), and by extension the governing body of a society regulates the rules by which all people within it live.
These simple relationships require people to form and have an opinion on how other people should live and worry about issues that affect others.
But people are most definitely strangers. Especially within the first world where individualism is the most rampant, invasions of privacy aren't simply abhored on a ideological level, they are considered a faux pas.
So especially within individualist societies one would do well to adhere to social standards and refrain from invading another persons privacy. To be concerned about a persons well being is a right you earn. To simply impose it on a person is wrong. In an individualist society you can only do that by invitation, not initiation.
As a citizen it is also none of your concern to regulate society. Regulating it is done via special bodies like the police force. It is your job to steer the society via voting.
You have no right to regulate any society, not without the express consent of society (thus the police force).
You may form opinions on how other people live, but to worry is to inject yourself too deeply into the personal life. Something that isn't appreciated. Injecting yourself into the personal life is akin to invading it.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. People go to Disney to have fun and enjoy themselves, not to educate themselves or feel bad. The obesity problem should be taught in schools/on the news. People read too much into things and assume the wrong things. Seems like OP is the one taking political correctness too far.
Imo, if the exhibit makes one kid decide to not be obese, it is worth it.
If it makes one kid depressed and he kills himself, then its not worth it...? It's a good premise for a ride, as long as it is not like "fat people are ugly" I mean really as much as some of you want to disagree with it being the parents fault, it is(minus genetics). Parents make or break the children.
"National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" has done really good work. Half of posters from US think that you can't do anything if you're fat ( genetics).
On March 06 2012 19:23 Rabbitmaster wrote: Now, i probably wouldn't be called "fat" by most people, but i am a few kilograms overwieght (maybe 5-8). And looking at my relatives, im probably genetically inclined to gain weight fairly easily. That said, i would never, EVER, be insulted if someone told me my extra kgs were unhealthy... What the hell is wrong with people? Whats next? Alcholism can also be "caused" be genetic predisposition, should we not be allowed to tell them it is unhealthy?
It's a disease.. The only cure is a divine intervention. Speaking of which, I heard there's a miracle involving a Virgin Mary not far from here.
Seriously though, I think political correctness is good in most circumstances, as it ensures smooth sailing and less problems for you. If you for instance go around calling coloured people niggers, you're going to end up having problems eventually.
If you eat too much, you'll get fat. Yes, I acknowledge the "too much"-part varies from person to person. However, I am worried by the fact some of the obese people are in the mindset of "I will get fat no matter what I eat", so they don't even try to eat less or exercise more. It's sad really. A bit pathetic if I can be so frank.
what people need the most is healthy dose of actual LSD ( the 99% that walks around the street is not....that ) taken in a professional and medical environment. Dunno what would the studies about this is today but in the 60's before people pulled the plug because of paranoia the rate of people who were alcoholics was reduced by ~60% ( from the people that took it ), LSD has nothing to do with alcohol or heroin or whatever, it just puts a scope on you're past activities and reminds you that you are destroying yourself. Well that's an idealistic thought because how western society evolved recently I'm amazed that we even have studies on psilocybin ( which in fact have brought some tremendously positive results ).
What has to be reinstated in the world is RESPONSIBILITY. If you are fat it's probably YOUR FAULT ( combined with how they dumb you down in school/tv ). If you are an alcoholic it is YOUR FAULT, if you are a smoker it's YOUR FAULT. I used to be all of that until I reached the age of reason and responsibility ( pretty late I might add, but most people live their whole life without that ).
The most gross thing in the world is that political correctness tainted comedy.
Well anyways, what do you expect when you have the institution of the family formed of 2 parents who work almost all day long so kids recieve poor education, the ones that stay with their kids haven't read a single book on human psychology or at least parenting and we're left with probably less than 3% of responsible parents who BY THE WAY have to BY LAW to send their children in the toxic environment of the SCHOOL. We have a 200+years old education model that was bad back then just how it is bad right now. The dynamic in the classroom is horrible.
On March 06 2012 20:44 dani` wrote: If you eat too much, you'll get fat. Yes, I acknowledge the "too much"-part varies from person to person. However, I am worried by the fact some of the obese people are in the mindset of "I will get fat no matter what I eat", so they don't even try to eat less or exercise more. It's sad really. A bit pathetic if I can be so frank.
I'm trying to find the link to an OMS study worldwide on obesity. The percentage of people that are fat because of a disease is around two percent of overweight people.
On March 06 2012 19:07 Mataza wrote: Laughing here.
Yes, there are people genetically inclined to gain more weight than others. But in America this cannot be the explanation. In essence they are all immigrant for the last couple hundred years or so. As far as I know the early settlers weren´t obese. Not everyone was allowed to immigrate. At times people allowed to immigrate were "sorted". Obese genes don´t come from nowhere. When obesity drastically increases in short time, let´s say less than 100 years, it friggin can´t be genetics. Genes need much more time to spread. You would have to explain that obese people reproduced way more than slim people. And I never heard anything like that.
It´s a problem of society and only society.
You had me until you said "only society". You can't say "only" anymore than anyone else can say it's "only" genetics or it's "only" aliens.
On March 06 2012 19:41 oldgregg wrote: Thanks for the stats guys, it's good to see people actually backing their shit up. Ok so obesity is a scourge on our society. I still think there are better ways of dealing with this than just being dicks to fat people. Surely people need to be motivated and educated about health and obesity, not bullied. At the end of the day though it's their own choice what they do with their bodies and if they want to stuff themselves with donuts then we can't stop them
People aren't saying we should be dicks to them, they are saying we shouldn't act like its normal and healthy to lead a lifestyle such as this because it isn't, and by society accepting it obese people will be less motivated to do something about it. It is detrimental to the individual who will likely suffer through increased health risks and shorter life span as well as the psychological impact it has on their self esteem, and it is detrimental to society because it puts extreme pressure on an already fragile health system. Call me an asshole but I would much prefer hospital beds be taken up by people with conditions outside of their control, as opposed to a bunch of smokers and obese individuals who knew the health risks involved yet refused to do anything about it. Also please don't put any words in my mouth, I said I would prefer it, not saying they don't deserve hospital beds.
Listen it doesnt matter what anyone says about obesity whilst we allow companies to sell 'food' that you are not allowed to feed to animals to humans and allow it to be advertised.
If its made in a factory, dont buy it, dont eat it ... obesity will go away.
I want my grocer and my butcher back ... i have to buy my meat from asda ... its shit. If i travel 5 miles to find a butcher i get sausages that are like the ones i remember from when i was a kid. I can get steaks that actually smell of cow! I can get meat that hasnt been reconstituted adn packaged and been flown in from the other side of the world where they need it more than me.
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.
On March 06 2012 19:41 oldgregg wrote: Thanks for the stats guys, it's good to see people actually backing their shit up. Ok so obesity is a scourge on our society. I still think there are better ways of dealing with this than just being dicks to fat people. Surely people need to be motivated and educated about health and obesity, not bullied. At the end of the day though it's their own choice what they do with their bodies and if they want to stuff themselves with donuts then we can't stop them
People aren't saying we should be dicks to them, they are saying we shouldn't act like its normal and healthy to lead a lifestyle such as this because it isn't, and by society accepting it obese people will be less motivated to do something about it. It is detrimental to the individual who will likely suffer through increased health risks and shorter life span as well as the psychological impact it has on their self esteem, and it is detrimental to society because it puts extreme pressure on an already fragile health system. Call me an asshole but I would much prefer hospital beds be taken up by people with conditions outside of their control, as opposed to a bunch of smokers and obese individuals who knew the health risks involved yet refused to do anything about it. Also please don't put any words in my mouth, I said I would prefer it, not saying they don't deserve hospital beds.
Actually the best way to be a dick to a fat guy is to say it's ok that he is fat because in doing so you support his way of life - which brings him no beautiful girls = no good sex = less happiness , being out of shape makes you feel rather shitty , you're not healthy etc etc.. So the best way to act to a fat guy is simply say he is a fat and he needs to wake up, start a diet and some exercise, you won't help him by saying it's np that your fat if you feel like loosing weight you know, that what you want to do ( I never advise people on what to do out of my own initiative, but If I'm asked I won't bullshit him ). Anyways when I got fat everyone was like "Jesus you're so fat wtf are you doing you need to do something about it", and it's better than the political correctness whoresh*t.
No one should impose on what people should do, however no one should impose what people should say that they should do.
Obesity is becoming just as prevelant in the uk as the us - just walk around primark (the mentality of which is part of a very similar class of problems imo). Crap clothes that are economically very expensive as they are cheap to buy but die after wearing them twice. Bit like a burger king burger ... cheap to buy but it dies inside of you causing the carcass of some goblin to leak out of your anus.
Hate to break it to you but sex does not = happiness. Contentment = happiness ...
there IS nothing wrong with being fat. You are applying your value system to someone else which makes you an opinionated asshole. Should people prefer to be fat over healthy ... hell no. Is being fat wrong? They ahve nothing to do with each other ... punching an old lady in the face is wrong, being a fat bastard is a lifestyle. Being intolerant is far worse - being a hedonist that thinks happiness = sex is just plain disturbing (especially when dissing the hedonist that prefers to shove things in his face rather than pussy)
Here's the thing about political correctness - you've got lawmakers. These lawmakers have to solve X number of issues such as the economy, moral issues, illegal immigration etc.
Problem is, they never agree on said issues, and we get gridlock. So lawmakers' solution to not look incompetent, is to come up with these bullshit laws and organizations and redressing everything, with the end product being we're using the term "gravitationally challenged" instead of "fat", and nothing really gets done.
But it's good for the lawmakers because they get to say "hurr durr we agreed on something and I can get stuff done vote for me next election". Which people do.
I like how there are so many people, who despite realizing that some people are more prone to gain weight due to genetics, still judge them for being overweight. If I was fat, I wouldn't accept living my life differently from others and watching what I eat more than a regular person, just because I put on some extra pounds. Changing the way you live just because of some "social rule" that you shouldn't be fat. Better stop gaming as well.
Obviously being obese to the point that your health is in danger is very bad and you should get help, but so should smokers.
Edit: this wasn't directed towards the OP but rather some of the posts I read in the thread.
On March 06 2012 21:31 Kira__ wrote: I like how there are so many people, who despite realizing that some people are more prone to gain weight due to genetics, still judge them for being overweight. If I was fat, I wouldn't accept living my life differently from others and watching what I eat more than a regular person, just because I put on some extra pounds. Changing the way you live just because of some "social rule" that you shouldn't be fat. Better stop gaming as well.
Obviously being obese to the point that your health is in danger is very bad and you should get help, but so should smokers.
Edit: this wasn't directed towards the OP but rather some of the posts I read in the thread.
It's the same with anything though. Some people are more prone to laziness, or forgetfulness. Does this mean we just dismiss it when they fail to turn up to work on time, or forget to do an important task just because genetically they are more challenged? Now obviously you can't compare things this easily, but the point remains that outside of extreme circumstances, you don't just go around making exceptions for people because genetically they are more challenged. Some people aren't born as intelligent as others, should they just not bother studying for a test because they finder it harder than the brightest kid in the class, or should they study harder to compensate for this?
Saying that keeping in shape is harder for some people, hence they don't have to bother trying is nothing but a poor excuse for everybody but the extremely small minority who actually have a condition that makes it impossible for them to stay in shape.
On March 06 2012 17:39 VTPerfect wrote: Pretty fail arguments from the pro exhibit side. Calorie input vs output is an extreme gross oversimplification of the biological processes that aren't even close to being fully understood. Doctors aren't going to say its your fault you got Arthritis, they aren't going to say its your fault you got a brain tumor and they aren't going to say its your fault you got Fat because there simply isn't enough evidence to conclusively say anything.
Really tired of posters using arguments like, "they are just lazy", "they need to eat less" "they need some tough love". Its pretty much the same flawed arguments about non-korean starcraft players (i find the term foreigner offensive). What exactly is your agenda anyways...
Well, it's a fact that it's impossible to gain weight if your calorie input is smaller or equal to your output. In addition, there are genetic factors that can make you more prone to obesity. You can have a slow metabolism and/or increased appetite. Physical prolems and a busy lifestyle can be additional risk for obesity. But the truth of the matter is that it is impossible to gain weight if you pay attention to your diet. For some people it's easy, for other's difficult and some might have to completely abstain from candy and junk food, but everybody can avoid being overweight with enough dedication.
Having a show won't help kids become any thinner than they are. It will merely transfer the idea of good and bad to thin and fat. It'll just put more psychological pressure and stress on those kids because now the fat kids are Rock Bottom and the thin kids are Will Power. And we know what Will Power does to Rock Bottom,. Kick his ass !
There's a genetic component to being fat or not. To say there there is no genetics involved would be quite revolutionary because that would mean there's a physical characteristic in a human being that does not have a genetic origin. And that would mean that when it comes to processing food we'd all be the same whilst being different in every other way.
But, since when is genetics an excuse ?
I get fat easily. I've seen people stuff lots more food in their mouths and exercise just as much as I did (ie no exercise) but just saying that it's genetics won't stop a heart attack from jacking me from this world will it ?
So even if you have a genetic disposition towards geining weight quicker, you can't let yourself be fat. Not because other monkeys like on this thread have become beauty fascists by watching too much TV and subscribe to some retarded overstretched beauty ideal, but because it's instrumental in having a good healthy life.
That show will do fuck all to the health of fat kids. Fat kids already know they're fat and get reminded of that fact on a regular basis. Just create a health program where losing weight isn;t made to be the effort-equivalent of climbing mount everest.
On March 06 2012 22:27 zerglingrodeo wrote: What in the fuck is that second 'article'? I can hardly make sense of it... from what language was it google translated into English?
Yeah it wasn't written very well. I just typed in "walt disney world childhood obesity exhibit" into google and got some more comprehensible articles to read. A better article from the Toronto Sun: Link
Incidentally I don't think the problem is as clear cut as people make it out to be from the OP. From the articles it looks like Disney oversimplified the exhibits without taking into account all the other problems that lead to weight gain which have become more prevalent int he 21st century, and secondly the way in which the exhibit was presented tended to "villainize" kids.
For the former: Ottawa bariatric surgeon Yoni Freedhoff said:
"The problem is quite complicated despite the fact that there is this truism that involves eating fewer calories and/or burning more of them. That truism is about as useful as buy low/sell high would be to making you a millionaire in the stock market. It's true. It's just not helpful."
For the latter: According to the spokesperson of the group:
"They (Disney officials) said the goal is really to teach people how to be healthy. I said I get that, but you can't be villainizing children of size," Discipio said.
And: From the petition supported by the National Association of Fat Acceptance
"The attraction and game feature negative stereotypical characters, traditionally used to torment overweight kids, will potentially reinforce and strengthen a cycle of bullying, depression, disease, eating disorders and even suicidal thoughts," the petition stated.
I really don't think they're saying that no one should ever support the medical data that's out there linking obesity to a number of diseases or heart problems, or that spreading this information is equivalent to bullying children. Its just as stated; the information was too simplified and perhaps it propagated certain stereotypes that are no longer true, and that the way in which the information was presented wasn't supportive but rather degrading.
I think the OP would benefit from some more detailed articles.
Obviously there are plenty of health issues relating to being overweight, and I suppose that it doesn't matter if that's due to it being a genetic problem or you simply not taking care of your body over the years.
I'm unsure of how you can tax obese people and not fit people. I'm fit but don't mind the occasional fast food burger. Should we all wear bracelets with our body mass index and medical stats so that we get discounts?
Advertising and talking with your doctor can certainly help, but there's definitely an important distinction between self-image and acceptance of unhealthy behavior in society. Leading a healthier lifestyle is a choice, and you don't want to be so ostracized that you start taking inappropriate measures to lose weight. At the same time, it has to be made clear that weighing 300 pounds when you're 5'6'' is not a good thing.
The problems with fat shaming has nothing to do with being fat--it has to do with the American idealization of being skinny.
It is attempting to curve the media idealization of skinny anorexic super models and shaming anyone who is curvy as being inferior for not looking lanky like a runway model.
The importance of body acceptance has nothing to do with saying that it is okay to be fat or obese, it has to do with shifting the blame away from personal choice and moving it towards cultural norms that need to be curbed. And so instead of saying "Americans are fat because they eat McDonalds all the time," body acceptance arguments suggests that the phrase be changed to something more akin to "government policy supports the proliferation of McDonalds instead of healthier alternatives and hence people are normalized into buying McDonalds more than healthier alternatives."
TLDR
Fat acceptance wants to shift blame from getting upset at fat people to getting upset at American policy. Instead of asking "why do fat people eat fast food?" ask the question "why does government tax/subsidy laws make fast food restaurants more profitable than healthier alternatives?"
On March 06 2012 21:31 Kira__ wrote: I like how there are so many people, who despite realizing that some people are more prone to gain weight due to genetics, still judge them for being overweight. If I was fat, I wouldn't accept living my life differently from others and watching what I eat more than a regular person, just because I put on some extra pounds. Changing the way you live just because of some "social rule" that you shouldn't be fat. Better stop gaming as well.
Obviously being obese to the point that your health is in danger is very bad and you should get help, but so should smokers.
Edit: this wasn't directed towards the OP but rather some of the posts I read in the thread.
Smokers are heavily taxed, have (recently) a bad image, get "smoking kills you and others around you" shoved in their face every time they buy a packet (in some cases even explicit photos of tarred lungs), get quite a fair amount of crap over 2nd hand smoke, and are restricted when it comes to where they are allowed to smoke. I'm not sure about their health insurance rates either. (I'm in favor of all those things)
On the other hand we're discussing about this disney park attraction being too tough on the poor fat people.
Critics claimed that the generally exhibit reinforced the stereotypes that children suffering from are generally have deprived eating patterns. Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
What is that, I don't even.
I'd like to see more evidence that it is 'political correctness' that is hindering the campaign against advertisement directed at children. I can see the link between the disney world exhibit and the possibility that political correctness is causing trouble for such exhibits, but I don't understand why you believe it is political correctness that is holding back the campaign against advertisement directed at children.
Agreed completely. In Disney's case, more likely than anything else, it's being held back because it's a stupid idea for an attraction. You've already ignored most fit people who won't give a shit, and will inevitably make overweight people feel uncomfortable in a place people visit so they won't feel uncomfortable.
You could make the equivalent attraction in Disney for bullying or any other societal problem, and the reaction would be "What the fuck is this doing here?"
On March 06 2012 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Obviously there are plenty of health issues relating to being overweight, and I suppose that it doesn't matter if that's due to it being a genetic problem or you simply not taking care of your body over the years.
I'm unsure of how you can tax obese people and not fit people. I'm fit but don't mind the occasional fast food burger. Should we all wear bracelets with our body mass index and medical stats so that we get discounts?
Advertising and talking with your doctor can certainly help, but there's definitely an important distinction between self-image and acceptance of unhealthy behavior in society. Leading a healthier lifestyle is a choice, and you don't want to be so ostracized that you start taking inappropriate measures to lose weight. At the same time, it has to be made clear that weighing 300 pounds when you're 5'6'' is not a good thing.
Well they could tax things like soda, but the corn lobby wouldn't have any of it.
Man I wouldn't even treat my kids with any fast food, My little brother is already spoiled with fast food. He wouldn't eat any traditional Vietnamese food, only if it's fried or battered...
He's a bit chubby and couldn't run for shit. When he says he wants water, he actually means carbonated drinks or juice.
The fact that this 'National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance' exists makes me embarrassed to be an American. Seriously what the fuck is this, the childhood obesity rate is climbing every year, Disney goes out of their way to budget in something that would aid the problem, and boom, it's shutdown by negative press from some ridiculous excuse for a legitimate organization?
Yeah, people may be genetically inclined toward being overweight...but what percentage of those individuals comprise the absurd amount of obese people living in America. This is just another fucking excuse for people to continue on blaming their poor health on something aside from their own self. People just need to stop making excuses and get their priorities straight, I'd imagine a human life is worth more than a couple hours of TV a day. I'll be the first to admit I put of coursework till the last minute but I'll be damned if I don't get in gym time and a run every. fucking. day. (besides Sunday >.>)
Fat people don't need to be told being fat is less likely to be healthy, or they need to be shamed. I think they've noticed. Adding more shaming for being fat isn't necessarily going to do anything, and is more likely to just make you sound like an annoying evangelical christian. ("Have you heard the good news about Jesus?" "Yes, a thousand times, now shut up" vs "Have you heard how unhealthy and immoral it is to be fat" "Yes, a thousand times, now shut up").
But even beyond that, fitness isn't as simple as weight. Normal weight can be unhealthy, and even obese individuals can be metabolically healthy. Athough the latter notes that there are other health risks for being morbidly obese, and a limited amount of weight loss is going to help even the metabolically healthy obese, "fat" is wider than the morbidly obese. You can easily be overweight (and not the athlete sort, the fat sort) and be healthier than someone at a "normal" weight, if you're phsyically active.
(Personally, I'm perpetually in the normal BMI range due to my build/metabolism, but that doesn't mean I've always actually been healthy).
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.
This is so true. Not just European though. A japanese large sized meal is roughly the size of an american small, and a japanese large drink is smaller than an american small one.
Human's aren't meant to be fat. There is absolutely no evolutionary reason to be fat, unless you need to survive in a blizzard with minimal food.
The biggest problem is fast food and soda. We as a nation drink and eat so much shitty food that we got fat. Yes, some people have genetic disposition to be fat, but never obese. I have some big friends, some who are genetically big and some who are naturally big, but never huge. One of my friends made a conscious effort to cut bad food out of his diet and exercise, and in like 6 months he looked great. His brother is still fat because all he does is play WoW, but hes not obese because he doesn't eat fast food often.
Many americans drink multiple cokes every day, and eat fast food multiple times each week. It's cheap, tasty and addictive, but most importantly its terrible for you. If america cut out a majority of its fast food restaurants, it would almost fix the problem of childhood obesity.
I like what happened with disney, since it gets the idea out into the open, but the "attraction" never went through. I can't see it doing well, since it goes against a lot of what disney is, which is a place to have fun.
Also I find it funny how different our worlds are. This sort of thing would never have appeared in sweden, where young girls struggling with anorexia is far more common than obese kids. Had theme parks made a ride here with skinny girls to have a similar effect though, it would've been shut down withing 10 minutes for about the same reasons.
On March 07 2012 00:23 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote: There is absolutely no evolutionary reason to be fat, unless you need to survive in a blizzard with minimal food.
Not to nitpick but it's in the exact same sentence, man.
It's not related to what's going on in the US/Britain/Australia/etc., but that's essentially the exact reason some subsets of human beings have had slower metabolisms and had a higher body fat %.
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.
This is so true. Not just European though. A japanese large sized meal is roughly the size of an american small, and a japanese large drink is smaller than an american small one.
Human's aren't meant to be fat. There is absolutely no evolutionary reason to be fat, unless you need to survive in a blizzard with minimal food.
The biggest problem is fast food and soda. We as a nation drink and eat so much shitty food that we got fat. Yes, some people have genetic disposition to be fat, but never obese. I have some big friends, some who are genetically big and some who are naturally big, but never huge. One of my friends made a conscious effort to cut bad food out of his diet and exercise, and in like 6 months he looked great. His brother is still fat because all he does is play WoW, but hes not obese because he doesn't eat fast food often.
Many americans drink multiple cokes every day, and eat fast food multiple times each week. It's cheap, tasty and addictive, but most importantly its terrible for you. If america cut out a majority of its fast food restaurants, it would almost fix the problem of childhood obesity.
I like what happened with disney, since it gets the idea out into the open, but the "attraction" never went through. I can't see it doing well, since it goes against a lot of what disney is, which is a place to have fun.
I completely agree and would like to stress that the feasibility of the disney attraction and the question wether people should be warned/bugged/harrassed about obesity are two different arguments.
Also I think americans should actually demand more protection from unhealthy food- i.e. better food and health regulations (might be communism though, you never know) from their government. Yes, indifference/ignorance are everyones own fault, but there is something to be said for at the very least clearly labeling unhealthy food as such, to visualize the choice every customer is making when choosing his food.
Slower metabolism... sure you burn less calories, but you also tend to be less hungry or feel sated for longer after a meal. Regulate your blood sugar and you will have an easier time regulating your hunger and energy level throughout the day.
There's nothing wrong with a little fat..but as it builds up its effect on health are pretty severe, and the increasing costs for society and health care reflects this.
On March 07 2012 00:23 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote: Human's aren't meant to be fat. There is absolutely no evolutionary reason to be fat, unless you need to survive in a blizzard with minimal food.
You couldn't know when your next meal is going to be which meant collecting all possible energy from food and stocking it as fat was a good thing.
On March 06 2012 16:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everything seems to be politicized in the U.S. and I think that is greatly harming the country. How someone can view Obesity in a positive light or think that such displays hurts people feelings and shouldn't be acceptable I can't understand. Reality is harsh and sometimes tough love is called for. It is a major major problem in the U.S. and is only getting worse it needs to be dealt with.
The problem is that the US is addicted to the "victimization" racket. They manufacture victims as often as possible, under the most absurd reasoning possible, because victims and minorities carry more clout and influence. That influence naturally carries over into the ridiculous over sensitivity we refer to as "political correctness."
Getting fat is the result of a complete lack of self control. People "want" to lose the weight, but they don't want to change how they eat/live. It's ridiculous. (I have a 350 lb roommate so I get to observe this phenomena every day. And then he complains all the time.)
I could not care less if an individual wants to be obese or is happy/comfortable/at peace with being obese, but the issue I take with it is the financial burden placed on taxpayers to fund the abhorrant hospital fees some of these people command.
Tax unhealthy food and soda the same way you do other carcinogens such as tobacco and alcohol IMO. The point of McDonald's food being affordable should never trump the point of it being a detriment to human health.
On March 07 2012 01:17 hongo wrote: Getting fat is the result of a complete lack of self control. People "want" to lose the weight, but they don't want to change how they eat/live. It's ridiculous. (I have a 350 lb roommate so I get to observe this phenomena every day. And then he complains all the time.)
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote: Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant.
I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his chair for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Edit: I may have missed your point. I get that some people just value the food and want to eat it and get overweight. My point is I hate it when the complain about being overweight and say the are trying to change but clearly don't change anything. I don't care if people are overweight and still are happy with their lives.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why?
You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
I personally perceive the problem to be the ridiculous amounts of sugar put into American food products. Walk down any supermarket in the US and check on the ingredients of any products that isn't fruit/veggies/meat/rice. I bet you that you won't find a single brand of bread that has no sugar in it. Same goes for any sauce, microwave food, and pretty much everything that has more than a single ingredient. Why?
Sugar is indeed fundamental to survival, but the quantities of sugar the American public is exposed to is basically criminal. Nature made sugar hard to get, men made it hard to avoid.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying.
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why?
You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
If you want to debate free will, there is a thread in general right now for that. I've already expressed my opinion there, so I don't want to derail this thread further.
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
That makes no sense at all. How am I introducing any infinite loop of the kind that you do? I am simply saying if someone says "I want to lose weight" they are going to have to change their lifestyle, which required self-control. If you do not have the self-control to deny yourself the pleasures you took before, you will not lose weight.
On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote: Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant.
I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
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).
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why?
You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
You do not have to be a dualist to believe in free will. Anyway, if he says that it has 'nothing to do with "self-control"' and thinks that the programming of the brain is the whole explanatory story, then it is pretty clear that there is some sort of determinism going on here. The general account is that it is not the fat person's fault because they do not have control over their desires or actions. There are plenty of determinists out there, and plenty of people that think that the brain is all we need to explain behavior. Leaning on this kind of account is as much a 'cogent argument' as name-dropping 'dualism in the philosophy of mind.'
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying.
Tax suger and you get more artificial sweateners. How is that better? People won't chance their habits by it, the food industry will simply adapt to find new ways to sell the kind of food that people want. Taxes can be useful in certain cases but simply putting taxes on what is considered unhealthy food won't solve any problems.
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
I personally perceive the problem to be the ridiculous amounts of sugar put into American food products. Walk down any supermarket in the US and check on the ingredients of any products that isn't fruit/veggies/meat/rice. I bet you that you won't find a single brand of bread that has no sugar in it. Same goes for any sauce, microwave food, and pretty much everything that has more than a single ingredient. Why?
Sugar is indeed fundamental to survival, but the quantities of sugar the American public is exposed to is basically criminal. Nature made sugar hard to get, men made it hard to avoid.
It isn't hard to avoid. Like you said, people have the option to eat fruit/veggies/meat/rice/etc. The public is also exposed to packs of pure sugar in the grocery store, that doesn't mean they are pressured to consume it. Exposure isn't the problem, it's the behavior itself, the desire to eat food that tastes good.
And if you want to know why so much food is so high in sugar and fat, that is the reason: because it's what people have chosen. The market is supplying the demand.
When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting. A tax on the "unhealthy" food has absolutely zero affect on whether I choose to eat unhealthy QUANTITIES or not. All it will do is act as a regressive tax on the poor, who are disproportionately obese.
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote: It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control.
Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why?
You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
You do not have to be a dualist to believe in free will. Anyway, if he says that it has 'nothing to do with "self-control"' and thinks that the programming of the brain is the whole explanatory story, then it is pretty clear that there is some sort of determinism going on here. The general account is that it is not the fat person's fault because they do not have control over their desires or actions. There are plenty of determinists out there, and plenty of people that think that the brain is all we need to explain behavior. Leaning on this kind of account is as much a 'cogent argument' as name-dropping 'dualism in the philosophy of mind.'
The fact that determinists exist—hard determinists or otherwise—does just as little, doesn't it? The real issue is whether or not cognitive behaviorism holds any water beyond a social context when discussing free will. In my opinion—and as an ardent supporter of Skinner and his work—I'm not so sure that it does. The problem of other minds makes this an impossible discussion to hold without centering it around anecdotal evidence and guesswork.
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.
If I buy a bag of "unhealthy" chips, am I going to eat it in one day? Am I going to eat it over the course of a month? Am I going to distribute it in small amounts to my family of 6? Should large families be punished for purchasing larger amounts of food?
The point is very clear: you cannot regulate individual consumption.
Should we tax pure sugar used for cooking? How do we regulate how much sugar people put in their food while cooking?
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying.
Tax suger and you get more artificial sweateners. How is that better? People won't chance their habits by it, the food industry will simply adapt to find new ways to sell the kind of food that people want. Taxes can be useful in certain cases but simply putting taxes on what is considered unhealthy food won't solve any problems.
Taxes are not the only form of regulation, which, as I have clarified is what is truly needed (not merely taxation).
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.
There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies.
The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors.
If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong.
Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
Better idea: Get rid of government involvement, allow bullying of fat kids.
On March 07 2012 01:17 hongo wrote: Getting fat is the result of a complete lack of self control. People "want" to lose the weight, but they don't want to change how they eat/live. It's ridiculous. (I have a 350 lb roommate so I get to observe this phenomena every day. And then he complains all the time.)
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
One of the main characteristics of being human is that we, as a species, are able to resist and not give in to instinctive impulses. Instinct can tell us to do one thing (which is irrationality), but we're perfectly able to do the complete opposite, if we've come to the rational conclusion that the former is bad for us.
On March 07 2012 01:50 liberal wrote: When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting.
You know what you could do? you could leave it on the plate. And when the staff comes over and says "was there anything wrong with your meal sir?!" you could say "yes! I am but a man, and you have served dinner for four."
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 he will pay more tax, compared to someone who buys small quantity of unhealthy food and a large quantity of healthy food untaxed. So if the people care about their money, they will prioritize healthy food. Not saying it's a good tax to do. But his point is valid.
"And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type." You know nothing about dietetics do you?
On March 07 2012 01:50 liberal wrote: When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting.
You know what you could do? you could leave it on the plate. And when the staff comes over and says "was there anything wrong with your meal sir?!" you could say "yes! I am but a man, and you have served dinner for four."
lol that's pretty funny
But I actually love that I can enjoy restaurant quality food for longer than just one meal. The more they are willing to give me, the better I can eat for the week. There are certainly "economies of scale" which favor larger portions of food rather than smaller.
Pointing out to people they're fucking fat is the only way they might take action to change. If no one bothers them about them being fat, why would they bother?
Of course there are issues that aren't helping, like unhealthy food and such, but that doesn't mean you should just go and get fat. Eat less, eat healthier, etc. There's almost never really an excuse for being fat other than you're too lazy to change.
Parents letting their kids get fat, and then protecting the fact, is pretty sad.
The thing that bugs me the most is people who are proud of being fat. You wouldn't be proud if you were a smoker, you wouldn't be proud if you were an alcoholic, so why the fuck should you be proud of the fact that you're costing society money AND mrake yourself die ealier. What kind of example is that for young people, it's OK to be obese? No it's not. It's alright if you're fine with it yourself, just don't tell other peopdle that it's great an should be accepted. You have a choice not to eat, just as you have with smoking, drinking, doing drugs etc. It's not like someone is secretely putting cakedough in your salad every lunch... I just don't get how it's acceptable at all and such a taboo to call someone fat if they have done it to themselves.
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.
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 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 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]
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote: Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant.
I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
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.
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
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote: Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant.
I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 +
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.
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.
most of the things you said here are either just wrong or not based on facts at all
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Being drunk is a state of being mentally impaired. Being fat is not, and to make that comparison is insulting to fat people who are actually happy being fat. Sure, overeating can be a coping mechanism for emotional problems, but just being overweight isn't indicative of that at all.
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?
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.
You seem to confuse happiness with being happy about ones weight. I have family members that have struggled with their weight their entire lifes and you'd be hardpressed to find happier people. That doesn't mean they wouldn't like to lose some weight.
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.
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.
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.
But it is possible that we've lost sight of a more dangerous problem. A new study shows that anorexia may actually be a more lethal psychiatric disorder. While certainly less widespread than obesity, this problem affects thousands of people and could put their lives more immediately at risk than over-eating.
The study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in July 2011 found that anorexia, and its ability to lead to other mental disorders, has a six-times greater risk of death if not treated early. For an anorexic in his or her 20s, there is an 18-times higher risk of death compared to his or her peers. Dr. Jon Arcelus of the University of Leicester, England, analyzed 36 different studies between 1966-2010 and concluded that there is a rate of 5.1 deaths per one thousand people with anorexia per year.
I found plenty of people arguing this point as well from other sources. Maybe you should read up and shut up?
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.
I searched through both disney sites and they have Americanized ethnic restaurants. I did not see where you could bring your own food. So, I guess if you planned ahead on what you wanted to eat you could have relatively healthy meals. But if you have kids, kids are gonna eat what they get at home so...meh
This may be slightly off topic but while we're discussing obesity in America, is it just me or am I the only one who hasn't seen an obese Asian?
Just to clarify, when I mean obese I'm talking in the region of 300 lbs and above. And I'm not here to spark a racism discussion, it's just this quote captured my attention:
Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
In the big city, down to the suburbs, New York or LA, the midwest down to the south. I've been to a lot of cities but I've never actually seen an obese Asian. Fat ones, sure, but never the Michelin-man type.
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.
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.
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.
"i don't know" was in reference to the question: "what is the relationship here?"
"i am positive" was a statement about how being 20 lbs underweight is terribly bad for your body and your heart. i don't know what the relationship is, but am positive that being 20 lbs is terrible for your body and heart. hence the use of the comma after "i don't know".
i believe my doctor is a relatively good source for information on health issues... (note that my doctor just said that, in general, being a little bit underweight is worse for you than being a little bit overweight. as in, being a little bit underweight is more comparable to being a lot overweight. i didn't ask him about the 5 vs 50 thing)
i graduated high school and am currently in college.
i have seen a resounding lack of sources or citations everywhere in this thread. i didn't ask anyone to believe me and this isn't an official argument and i'm not writing in a scientific journal. a simple google search will tell you all you need to know about the risks of being underweight vs. those of being overweight.
what is "BULLSHIT"? i would be glad to hear some sources from you that prove me wrong.
On March 07 2012 03:56 Xpace wrote: This may be slightly off topic but while we're discussing obesity in America, is it just me or am I the only one who hasn't seen an obese Asian?
Just to clarify, when I mean obese I'm talking in the region of 300 lbs and above. And I'm not here to spark a racism discussion, it's just this quote captured my attention:
Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
In the big city, down to the suburbs, New York or LA, the midwest down to the south. I've been to a lot of cities but I've never actually seen an obese Asian. Fat ones, sure, but never the Michelin-man type.
'Underweight' and 'overweight' are not precise terms, so "5lb underweight is worse than 50lb overweight" isn't really a meaningful statement. However, starvation is generally more harmful than obesity.
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.
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.
...What?
Why are you making random weight claims if you have no evidence to back them up?
Please cite sources. Why should I have to do the research for you?
Obviously, being underweight or overweight are both not ideal. That's why they're given those names -.-'
Where are you getting your numbers from? I would seriously like to know. Are you just making up shit or do you have actual medical reasons to believe this?
On March 07 2012 03:56 Xpace wrote: This may be slightly off topic but while we're discussing obesity in America, is it just me or am I the only one who hasn't seen an obese Asian?
Just to clarify, when I mean obese I'm talking in the region of 300 lbs and above. And I'm not here to spark a racism discussion, it's just this quote captured my attention:
Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
In the big city, down to the suburbs, New York or LA, the midwest down to the south. I've been to a lot of cities but I've never actually seen an obese Asian. Fat ones, sure, but never the Michelin-man type.
does sumo count?
Sumo wrestlers have a harder daily regiment than an overwhelming majority of people in America's gyms. So no, they don't count. But yes, I've seen one IRL. Haven't seen one that size that wasn't a sumo wrestler.
As I was reading the last few pages of the thread I noticed a lot of talk about "x number of pounds too much / too few", but these numbers alone don't really tell the whole story. If you are trying to find out how much of an impact a gain in weight has on you, you should calculate your own BMI (body mass index) which takes into account both your weight AND your hight. After all 10 extra pounds has a bigger impact on somebody who is 5,3 feet tall than some guy who's 6 feet tall.
I have no problem with fat people. I have problems with fat people who want to lose weight and complain all the time about it, without putting in any effort. I believe obesity is a terrible thing and the rate in which it consumes the United States(and a sum of western countries) is startling. However, "the happiest place on earth" shouldn't be preaching the negativity of childhood obesity.
On March 07 2012 04:22 Warba wrote: As I was reading the last few pages of the thread I noticed a lot of talk about "x number of pounds too much / too few", but these numbers alone don't really tell the whole story. If you are trying to find out how much of an impact a gain in weight has on you, you should calculate your own BMI (body mass index) which takes into account both your weight AND your hight. After all 10 extra pounds has a bigger impact on somebody who is 5,3 feet tall than some guy who's 6 feet tall.
i heard BMI isn't a good standard either, as an "overweight" linebacker is more athletic and healthier than a "fit" basement dweller that has never lifted weights before.
The problem is that you are focusing on a possible symptom. Equating weight to health is a very bad idea to put into the minds of children. Many people already have this simplified view on health as you can see from this thread, and it is very unhelpful in dealing with the people's health.
What you want is to encourage a healthy consumption of foods that with the nutrients that you need, encourage exercise , and discourage consumption of foods with negative health consequences. A "healthy" weight is going to naturally correlate with this.
When you just make the goal simply about weight, you can lead people down dangerous paths, especially young girls. Eating disorders are very common , and they exist because of viewpoints like the one expressed in the OP. When lower weight becomes the sole goal, there are many methods to attain it which are not at all healthy, such as anorexia, or bolumia. These exist because of our focus on image as a measure of health. These are dangerous disorders and are very damaging to young girls (and boys).
It's not just eating disorders, though. You can have all kinds of diets with stuff that is terrible for your system but will not cause you to be overweight. We need to stop simplifying everything. Health is a very complex thing, and it needs to be treated as such. If you're going to make a theme park ride, it should be about what kind of food would be healthy to eat, or what kind of activities kids could do to keep their body healthy.
There are so many people who are hurt every day by this ignorant, simplified viewpoint. And it disgusts me that such stupidity gets perpetuated in discussions like this. We definitely have a health problem in our world today, and we should for sure try to fix it, but you have to go about it in a smart way, and it is going to take more than this common, casual, unthought-out, ignorant of biology approach.
I want people to be healthy, happy, and live long , but I don't want young teens destroying their bodies in a faulty attempt to achieve a "healthy image."
(The OP opinion is kind of short so it was hard to fully understand his viewpoint. If his viewpoint isn't as I am implying, just imagine I am arguing against one of the others in this thread who do have the view I am attacking).
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.
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
First of all, we are not talking about aneroxia, just about being (very) thin, that does not always require someone to have a psychlogical eating dissorder. Now let's start with your points:
1. On whicht facts is this based in your opinion? I mean seriously, wtf, one problem for me is that i do not know what "lbs" means since i am meausuring in kg but no matter what kind of scale lbs is this is not true, in fact it is widely proven that pretty much any bodyfat(provides space for many liposoluble toxic substances) can be considered unhealthy since people nowadays(at least tlers) do not need to overeat in good times to prepare for starvation times, underweight on the other hand is only unhealthy if you are a child/teenager(because you need to grow and develop obviously) or if it is the result of malnourishment ie not having enough vitamins/mitcronutrients for specific organs to run ->being 5lbs underweight doesn't indicate that at all
2. yeah, i guess you are right here therefore i have written "most" in my initial posting
3,4,5. like i said above we are not talking about anorexia, which is mainly a psychological problem
but even with anorexia your arguments are not that solid, your point 4 is only true if someone's anorexia is not healed, most concerned actually recover pretty well once their disease is healed and your argument 5 is just based on asumptions, do you say that because you know one single person that has had anorexia and know still has psychological problems?
On March 07 2012 05:08 divito wrote: The same problem (but not for the same reasons) would have cropped up if they made an anti-drug attraction.
Anti-anything, really.
Disneyland is where people go to escape the fact that there are bad things in the world. I can understand people being put aback by a Disney attraction that says there are negative consequences to their lifestyle. It just doesn't fit into the mold.
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
Shame about not being able to see your genitals is good.
Going out of our way to make sure that people aren't ashamed of any negative trait or action is not a good thing. Shame and pride are two important drivers of self improvement.
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
Its not right to tell a dying person that he's okay. The point of the health movement is to help people who are ignorant of proper diet and exercise habits. But you can't help someone who doesn't admit that he has a problem. Especially if you feed that person lies that being obese is 'okay' and 'normal'.
Every time I see some self victimizing boo-hoo sob story like this I just point out first world problems and tell them to get over whatever they are whining about.
I was an "obese" kid. I stopped eating like a fat kid, and I stopped being fat. That was 12 years ago. Not so hard. The American principle of politically correct acceptance has gone way to far.
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
Its not right to tell a dying person that he's okay. The point of the health movement is to help people who are ignorant of proper diet and exercise habits. But you can't help someone who doesn't admit that he has a problem. Especially if you feed that person lies that being obese is 'okay' and 'normal'.
You must think obese people are morons. Countrary to what many seem to believe, they don't actually need to be told that they are not living a healthy life.
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
Its not right to tell a dying person that he's okay. The point of the health movement is to help people who are ignorant of proper diet and exercise habits. But you can't help someone who doesn't admit that he has a problem. Especially if you feed that person lies that being obese is 'okay' and 'normal'.
You must think obese people are morons. Countrary to what many seem to believe, they don't actually need to be told that they are not living a healthy life.
Morons is stretching it. I would call it ignorance. Most 'normal' diets, especially American ones are not healthy. They are carb dense (too much rice, bread, pasta), have too many hydrogenated fats/oils, too much salt/sugar, and too many high gyclemic/insulin index foods. In my diet, I eliminate those items all together.
Even people's exercise habits are not healthy. I see fat people spending too much time at the gym stressing their bodies out on the treadmills sustaining high heart rates for way to long. That form of high calorie/ high calorie out lifestyle is not healthy or conducive to weight loss. They need to be educated.
its the same as with smokers, they know they are killing their health and do it anyways. Except smoking is far more annoying and worse for the people around you
It's an anti-supportive perspective issue based on stigma. Rather than addressing the true sociological forces making obesity an issue, they choose to tell people not to be the way they are. Who honestly is going to make positive progress in this fashion - if you are a smoker and you know all the benefits but you've tried numerous times to quit and it feels impossible - how do you think it makes the person feel when you tell them not to be a smoker?
I just wrote a paper considering some of the sociological forces regarding obesity - in my opinion the cause of the problem is a lack of research and data regarding a parents' effect on children. There are all these programs in school educating children on what food they should eat, but when they get home who buys the food? Not only should the nutritional aspect of food be informed to parents, but the psychological importance they make food out to be to their children. It goes the same way with media consumption in children, there are all these arguments saying that corporations are targeting children to instill customers throughout their life; the power of these commercials are completely dependent on the amount they are consumed. Reading some studies I saw statistics like reducing a child's tv consumption by 7 hours a WEEK could reduce the number of overweight children by 18% and 14% in adolescents. Also another study says that only 3 out of 10 parents have rules on media consumption in their family.
My overall point is that I think people get the issue ass-backwards in terms of where there is potential to solve the problem because of a lack of information regarding the new age of technological advance and its relationship to parenting nowadays.
Smoking is also genetic... That is not their fault...
Give me a break. Quit kidding yourselves and wake up. Reality is that you are generally (not always, but usually) obese because you do not work out and your diet is terrible. Your family's habits do play into these things, but seriously, when will people actually be held accountable for THEIR OWN ACTIONS?
The easiest way to get everyone to become skinny is to remove all food subsidies. Food will be more expensive than healthcare and the entirety of America will be on a forced diet.
The reason people can eat too much is because government subsidies and government programs allows for the mass production of food. If the government simply stopped being so supportive of cheap food, America wouldn't be so fat.
Is it just me or does anyone else have the impression that the "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" is made out of a bunch of obese old folks living in denial?
This is not an issue about shame. Telling them they are inferior people because they are fat would be wrong. Telling them they are unhealthy people because they are fat is just being honest.
There is nothing wrong with telling people they SHOULD attempt to be not fat. This is exactly equivalent to telling them that they should get a wound bandaged or get an infection treated. You are not telling them they are bad people because they are fat, just that they have an unambiguous health issue that should probably be addressed.
You don't see associations for the acceptance of staff infections, or for acceptance of people with broken legs. Because they realise this is not a good or normal thing for the human condition.
Being so sensitive as to shut down facilities exactly designed to help people with the issue, is just ridiculous.
People wouldn't try to shut down sexual health clinics because having a venereal disease is 'normal' or 'a lifestyle choice'. Heck you wouldn't even shut down ear hospitals because being deaf is a 'valid lifestyle choice', even if some people are born that way. Why would you do it to something that tries to combat obesity?
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
A lot of obese parents raise their children to be as well. Its a very different problem compared to smoking and drinking because a child is pulled in without realizing it at a very young age.
And, in like manner, insane political correctness dictates that Disney DO something through animated superheroes for obesity. Combating childhood obesity is a very politically-favorable movement, and that gives it traction in this case. Which is more an example of political correctness, Disney proposing the idea in the first place, or backing away away at a different interest group's pressure?
On March 07 2012 05:54 Noro wrote: People should be called what they are. Obesity is not healthy, why would anyone try and tell people that it's okay? Wtf.
Because it's their body? Who are you to tell them they have to be healthy? I do unhealthy shit all the time and it's none of your business. Now if I was obese I'd probably want to change that but still, it would be none of your business
A lot of obese parents raise their children to be as well. Its a very different problem compared to smoking and drinking because a child is pulled in without realizing it at a very young age.
Thats not even the issue.
You call people what they are, that's not politically incorrect. That's just how language works....
Noone is telling you have HAVE to be healthy, we are telling you that you SHOULD be healthy.
People with the cold don't get offended when you tell them they should rest and drink lots of water, people with diabetes don't get offended when you tell them they should watch their sugar intake. Because these are just logical steps to take to combat something that is unambiguously bad for the body.
You have the choice to ignore them, you don't get to tell them not to tell the truth.
On March 07 2012 15:45 Danglars wrote: And, in like manner, insane political correctness dictates that Disney DO something through animated superheroes for obesity. Combating childhood obesity is a very politically-favorable movement, and that gives it traction in this case. Which is more an example of political correctness, Disney proposing the idea in the first place, or backing away away at a different interest group's pressure?
Whether or not Disney proposing the idea is politically motivated is irrelevant. Corporations do things for their own reasons, what are you going to do. For the sake of argument we are just going to assume both proposing the idea and getting them shut down are both politically motivated.
What Disney proposed was politically motivated and(or but) in the public interest, thus a good thing. Getting it shut down is politically motivated and not in the public interest, thus a bad thing. Their motives are essentially irrelevant.
On March 07 2012 15:26 theBALLS wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else have the impression that the "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" is made out of a bunch of obese old folks living in denial?
It actually is. They were interviewed on Penn and Teller's Bullshit!
Granted, from what I've read and seen about them, they're more concerned with raising the self-esteem of obese people and getting them out and about (as many fat people are extremely self-conscious and therefore less likely to be as outgoing), which aren't bad things at all... but the raising awareness that obesity is "acceptable"... well, that just depends on what that term means. Obesity is still unhealthy. We should still treat fat people as people. We shouldn't demonize them. But it's still a problem. ::shrugs::
On March 07 2012 15:26 theBALLS wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else have the impression that the "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" is made out of a bunch of obese old folks living in denial?
It actually is. They were interviewed on Penn and Teller's Bullshit!
Granted, from what I've read and seen about them, they're more concerned with raising the self-esteem of obese people and getting them out and about (as many fat people are extremely self-conscious and therefore less likely to be as outgoing), which aren't bad things at all... but the raising awareness that obesity is "acceptable"... well, that just depends on what that term means. Obesity is still unhealthy. We should still treat fat people as people. We shouldn't demonize them. But it's still a problem. ::shrugs::
That's exactly correct. There IS an issue where people are unfairly harsh on obese people, because it is seen as a 'disease born from choice'. But that doesn't make obesity somehow a 'normal' or 'acceptable' thing.
The main problem is that the fight against society's unfair view of obese people has evolved into an unfair assertion that being fat is somehow 'ok'. It is like that blind couple from a few years back who were trying intentionally to have a blind child.
Being fat or blind doesn't mean we should treat you(I'm not refering to the guy i'm quoting, just people in general) as subhuman, but it does mean we should be able to recognise that you may have issues that need to be addressed or worked around.
This is not rocket science, having problems does not mean you are inferior. People treating you as people also does not mean we pretend there's nothing wrong with you. Everyone has problems, everyone needs to recognise and address them, you can't just get offended and pretend a problem doesn't exist, and we shouldn't have to pretend they are not problems to avoid offending you.
Whilst individually people can beat obesity through good diet and regular moderate exercise I think as a problem as a whole it is much bigger than this. People are a product of their environment and the environment is an area of public health and government control. Firstly there needs to be a shift in general attitude from disease fixing to health promotion. Secondly eating healthy and living healthy should make economic sense- tax fast foods and sedentary activities like cinemas and subsidise fresh food and sporting activities. Thirdly a lot of education from a young age.
The relevant part starts at about 2:30 and is basically about how obesity can travel from person to person and you are more likely to be overweight if you know people that are overweight, or even if your circle of people you know know people that are overweight. And the use of social networks here is not in the internet sense in the network of people interacting socially.
As for fat people in relation to smoking and drinking, I sympathize with the idea that fat shouldn't be demonized to a certain extent and also with the idea that there might be people out there for whom being overweight is a choice, one that is related to a diet of things that make them happy. I sympathize with that the same way I sympathize with smoking, namely that if someone wants to smoke and increase their risk of lung cancer then that is their business and as long as they are relatively polite about where and when they smoke, I don't have a problem with it.
I guess the only thing I would add is that the issue is obviously complicated and with no real practical solutions. If parents instilled better values in their kids and did their best to make sure their kids maintained healthy diet and exercise, then this problem wouldn't be a problem. But you can't police all the parents in the world, let alone America. And teaching a large populace that doesn't believe in evolution or that thinks Rick Santorum would make a great president that they should change the way they live their lives seems like it would be impossible. People get defensive over things they may know are completely wrong, and there is very little to be done about it.
If you demonize fat kids, then fat kids get bullied and that is certainly not a good solution. But there does have to be some way to create ideal body images for kids with minimal increase in bullying. The fact is that bullying will happen regardless. Kids are awful because, from my experience, kids have much lower levels of empathy and less developed emotional intelligence to be able to deal with each other than adults do, and most adults are pretty stupid as well. So bullying will happen regardless. This doesn't mean that a strategy which increases bullying is a good thing, because it isn't. But it does mean that if you had multiple strategies, such as perhaps one that might have a slight increase in a negative image, but another that also attempted to train the emotional intelligence of kids and their manners in general so as to decrease the bullying that happens might be worth looking into.
I don't know. I don't have any solutions. I do think too many people in the thread are treating this in way too simplistic of a manner because there are really two discussions (at least) around the idea of what should be done about obesity. There is the personal level which is about your own willpower, and then there is the communal or national level which needs bigger solutions than just "man the fuck up". That second one takes a complicated answer which neither "be better" nor "tax sugar" will solve.
Since heart disease and diabetes is such a major problem, something like the 2nd or 3rd biggest cause of death in America, how could it possibly be wrong of Disney to educate children about body weight? It's not like that ride was taunting the kids for being fat and calling them names. Being fat is not a good thing and nothing to be proud of...
On March 07 2012 16:40 fuzzy_panda wrote: Since heart disease and diabetes is such a major problem, something like the 2nd or 3rd biggest cause of death in America, how could it possibly be wrong of Disney to educate children about body weight? It's not like that ride was taunting the kids for being fat and calling them names. Being fat is not a good thing and nothing to be proud of...
Correct, but telling people the truth hurts their feelings. It's much better to let everyone live in ignorance and think they're happy.
On March 07 2012 16:40 fuzzy_panda wrote: Since heart disease and diabetes is such a major problem, something like the 2nd or 3rd biggest cause of death in America, how could it possibly be wrong of Disney to educate children about body weight? It's not like that ride was taunting the kids for being fat and calling them names. Being fat is not a good thing and nothing to be proud of...
Correct, but telling people the truth hurts their feelings. It's much better to let everyone live in ignorance and think they're happy.
I sincerely apologize for my language. However, I believe it's called for.
wtf dude are u stupid? its much better to have those limping diabeetos drain vast majority of healthcare resources just because some fast food/food producing companies make good buck of it and some insecure person gets offended? wtf. do you think its a right to be morbidly obese?
On March 07 2012 16:40 fuzzy_panda wrote: Since heart disease and diabetes is such a major problem, something like the 2nd or 3rd biggest cause of death in America, how could it possibly be wrong of Disney to educate children about body weight? It's not like that ride was taunting the kids for being fat and calling them names. Being fat is not a good thing and nothing to be proud of...
Correct, but telling people the truth hurts their feelings. It's much better to let everyone live in ignorance and think they're happy.
I sincerely apologize for my language. However, I believe it's called for.
wtf dude are u stupid? its much better to have those limping diabeetos drain vast majority of healthcare resources just because some fast food/food producing companies make good buck of it and some insecure person gets offended? wtf. do you think its a right to be morbidly obese?
You didn't even stop to ponder whether that could have been ironic, did you? :s
Wow america has an association to help fat people feel good about themselves? next will be protection to people breaking into others houses. OH WAIT!!!
Sad thing is that Australia is only about ten years behind.
A society ruins itself... But hey eating A LOT of food is good for consumption and consumption drives growth and growth is necessary to finance the health care system in order to provide for diabetes etc, which is caused by overweight, which is caused by eating A LOT...
On March 07 2012 03:56 Xpace wrote: This may be slightly off topic but while we're discussing obesity in America, is it just me or am I the only one who hasn't seen an obese Asian?
Just to clarify, when I mean obese I'm talking in the region of 300 lbs and above. And I'm not here to spark a racism discussion, it's just this quote captured my attention:
Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism.
In the big city, down to the suburbs, New York or LA, the midwest down to the south. I've been to a lot of cities but I've never actually seen an obese Asian. Fat ones, sure, but never the Michelin-man type.
You aren't looking in the right places. I don't live in the US (Singapore here) but from my observations in Japan and my country, the really fat ass Asians tend to camp in LAN shops (sort of like PC bangs in Korea) or at home playing games. MMOs are the most common genre they play. There's a particular LAN shop that my friends and I like to go to and every single time we've been there over the past 1 year (about 10 times) there was a different obese guy sitting in a chair. Sometimes two. And yes, I'm referring to the Michelin man, spilling out of the chair, blocking the doorway type. Probably doesn't help that there's a McDonalds' outside the shop.
ON TOPIC: Is it really so bad? Like if a campaign aiming to reduce childhood obesity happens to hurt someone's feelings and he decides to sue, would the case hold in court?
We have something (sort of similar) here, the Trim and Fit club was a program meant to help primary school children lose weight, but it was discontinued after parents complained that being associated with the club caused their children to get bullied and made fun of. Probably didn't help that the acronym was FAT spelled backwards.
On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote: Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge.
All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant.
I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
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.
I am able to locate it fine in the UK. Granted my experience in US supermarkets is substantially less. I'm sure that the fact I can go to the Walmart website, look up fresh fruit and find 3 items of 117 that are whole, unprocessed fruit is not indicative of anything.
I am 6'1" and 160lb, giving a BMI of 21.1. Really it's harder to be more in the middle of the normal, healthy weight category - however I am happy to say I'm on the slimmer side of the people I know. You're probably American, and this probably confirms I am a twig, in your estimation.
Just so I'm sure, because there seems to be a lot of people saying "fat people should just be more healthy" or it's their body, it's not your right to judge" does the term fat means large body or unhealthy body. Are they making a distinction from someone who is naturally large and someone who is large from say over-eating or laziness? Or are they just grouping them both together?
Whatever the cause of someone's weight, judging or shaming that person about their body doesn't help. The judging and shaming is more likely to result in them rejecting themselves, and they will eat more as a strategy to control their negative emotions.
Often there is some larger addiction or control strategy like this at play when it comes to overeating. From reading the responses to the OP, however, most seem to have taken this opportunity to bitch about fat people and play up the "personal responsibility" line.
Digging oneself out of a psychological hole, as the "personal responsibility" advocates suggest, doesn't happen. Usually, it takes the intervention of others (friends, family members, coworkers, therapists). How hard it must be when society rejects you for your "choices" so strongly! Or when your family members are also addicts?
Self-acceptance, on the other hand, is an enabling tool: it allows people to stop struggling with the negative feelings that result from their condition so they have enough headspace to fix their problems. "Fat acceptance" shouldn't be looked down upon, in this case. Teaching people to accept themselves does not mean letting them off the hook, and shaming people about their bodies won't do anything to combat the problem.
seriously...please tell me that this is a joke... I mean I can see other reasons why people don't like the whole fat education thing in Disneyland but... it's ok to be "fat?!"
There is nothing I can really contribute to this thread that isn't already common sense... People need to stop being sheltered.
I support what Disney was trying to do. "Being healthy is something to strive for." It's nice, it's a good message, but really they should be clear on the difference between fat and health. After all, being unhealthy is not a genetic issue no matter how you spin it, even though weight may be. Yes, some people are genetically predisposed to put on more weight, but that weight won't affect their overall health much, as they can still be fit in a cardiovascular sense, live full lives, etc.
What Disney should rail against should not be someone's body mass, but their eating and exercise habits. Don't say "you shouldn't be fat," say "you should exercise a lot and eat well." Much more clear, much less outrageous.
Still, "National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance" is not something that should exist. Politics fail.
This picture isn't exactly about this particular issue, but it's related in my opinion. The world we now live in is concerned with making sure that children don't feel bad about themselves rather than teaching them properly. The problem is: bringing kids up in a world where they can do no wrong AND failing to teach good habits is the worst possible thing that we can do as a society. Here's the comic of a related issue:
Also, I'm not a biased old man. I'm 19 years old and I grew up at the beginning of this entitled/do-no-wrong era. It's only gotten worse since then. It would be wrong to hate on people for being overweight. That's absurd. But teaching that it's okay to to continue to live an unhealthy life without any effort toward being healthier is just as absurd.
On March 08 2012 03:43 Mr Showtime wrote: This picture isn't exactly about this particular issue, but it's related in my opinion. The world we now live in is concerned with making sure that children don't feel bad about themselves rather than teaching them properly. The problem is: bringing kids up in a world where they can do no wrong AND failing to teach good habits is the worst possible thing that we can do as a society. Here's the comic of a related issue:
Also, I'm not a biased old man. I'm 19 years old and I grew up at the beginning of this entitled/do-no-wrong era. It's only gotten worse since then. It would be wrong to hate on people for being overweight. That's absurd. But teaching that it's okay to to continue to live an unhealthy life without any effort toward being healthier is just as absurd.
It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, you can't tell people that being overweight is a good way to be, and you have to encourage people who are overweight to take this time, right now, as the time where they decide to become healthier.
On the other hand, if you tell children that being overweight is bad and wrong, you encourage and enable bullying of overweight children. In my experience, children who are overweight are frequently so due at least in part to depression and comfort eating. If you act in such a manner as to increase bullying of overweight children, they will often simply become more depressed, or, in an equally bad outcome, take extreme measures to lose weight, which is equally unhealthy.
On March 08 2012 03:43 Mr Showtime wrote: This picture isn't exactly about this particular issue, but it's related in my opinion. The world we now live in is concerned with making sure that children don't feel bad about themselves rather than teaching them properly. The problem is: bringing kids up in a world where they can do no wrong AND failing to teach good habits is the worst possible thing that we can do as a society. Here's the comic of a related issue:
Also, I'm not a biased old man. I'm 19 years old and I grew up at the beginning of this entitled/do-no-wrong era. It's only gotten worse since then. It would be wrong to hate on people for being overweight. That's absurd. But teaching that it's okay to to continue to live an unhealthy life without any effort toward being healthier is just as absurd.
It's a complicated issue. On the one hand, you can't tell people that being overweight is a good way to be, and you have to encourage people who are overweight to take this time, right now, as the time where they decide to become healthier.
On the other hand, if you tell children that being overweight is bad and wrong, you encourage and enable bullying of overweight children. In my experience, children who are overweight are frequently so due at least in part to depression and comfort eating. If you act in such a manner as to increase bullying of overweight children, they will often simply become more depressed, or, in an equally bad outcome, take extreme measures to lose weight, which is equally unhealthy.
The kinds are screwed no matter what if they have crappy parents. Their parents should be health conscious. If the parents are overweight pigs then in all likelihood their kids will be. At this point societal pressure is the only option. The parents of overweight children should be disciplined, not the children. Its within your right as an adult to live an unhealthy lifestyle, but to push that lifestyle on your children should be a crime.
If someone wants to say that bullying or making fun of overweight kids is wrong, that's fine. I just hope they don't shift things to "being fat is ok." Well not really. You can be a little overweight and still be quite healthy, but to say that being fat is perfectly fine, you're really not helping a major health concern.
From OP: "We have stupid doctors: Doctors further claimed that obesity can, at most of the times, go all the way down to genetics as well as a variety of other aspects like food and medications can be employed in the form of a mechanism."
No... It would be journalists cherry-picking a doctor's words.
I am about to read this book. I read how the corn subsidies in this country created a nation addicted to dense starchy carbs and sweeteners. The high insulin response of these foods creates a cycle where the body gets put into 'starvation' mode and refuses to burn recently converted glucose, opting to rather eat more.
This is the main reason I am on a paleolithic diet. I believe our ancestors simply were not evolved to consume this way. We have been eating lean meat, fruits and vegetables for hundreds of thousands of a years. Compare that to the fairly recent occurrence of agriculture where we figured out how to process a previously indigestible grain that has little nutritional value and requires a high insulin response but actually generates low blood glucose.
Obesity is a very important issue and I think alot of people dont have the knoweldge to form educated opinions on the issue but its obviously a problem.
The spoiler gets a little ranty sorry but some posts I saw in this thread got me a little upset and I wanted to say some things about them. + Show Spoiler +
Alot of these posts are disgusting, some people need to think about what they are posting beofre they hit that button.
Aceptence and support are two totally different things, some of these posts make it sound like its ok to discriminate aginst obese people even though most people posting probobly have no idea what "fat" people have to go though. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who have been overweight since elementry school, both parents are obese and they have been thier whole lives so they don't know how to deal with an obese kid because they don't know how to be heathly. Add on top of that a good helping of bulling during school and emotional issues casued by that, HOW FUCKING HARD DO YOU THINK IT IS FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT TO GET INTO SHAPE LET ALONE DO IT WHILE GOING THROUGH A YOUNG ADULT LIFE BUT YOUR BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECUASE YOU ARE WAY OVERWEIGHT.
But yeah most of these posts are alright but some of them have no idea what they are talking about, so please do yourself a favor if you dont have first hand knowledge of these issues and just stop posting bullshit.
People seem to be under the impression that if there is nothing to be offended about, you're not hurting anybody. To a degree, removing that ride does a lot more damage by letting people continue with questionable health choices.
This mindset is prevalent all over society and it stems from this magical idea that if you are offended you are entitled to some sort of compensation. When in reality, when you are offended, nothing happens. You can't please all of the people all of the time and the fat acceptance society seems like a backwards way of going about it.
On March 08 2012 10:00 Trotske wrote: Obesity is a very important issue and I think alot of people dont have the knoweldge to form educated opinions on the issue but its obviously a problem.
The spoiler gets a little ranty sorry but some posts I saw in this thread got me a little upset and I wanted to say some things about them. + Show Spoiler +
Alot of these posts are disgusting, some people need to think about what they are posting beofre they hit that button.
Aceptence and support are two totally different things, some of these posts make it sound like its ok to discriminate aginst obese people even though most people posting probobly have no idea what "fat" people have to go though. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who have been overweight since elementry school, both parents are obese and they have been thier whole lives so they don't know how to deal with an obese kid because they don't know how to be heathly. Add on top of that a good helping of bulling during school and emotional issues casued by that, HOW FUCKING HARD DO YOU THINK IT IS FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT TO GET INTO SHAPE LET ALONE DO IT WHILE GOING THROUGH A YOUNG ADULT LIFE BUT YOUR BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECUASE YOU ARE WAY OVERWEIGHT.
But yeah most of these posts are alright but some of them have no idea what they are talking about, so please do yourself a favor if you dont have first hand knowledge of these issues and just stop posting bullshit.
Right, and this is why I consider it child abuse for a parent to raise their child to be overweight. Its extremely detrimental to the child's entire life. Socially, psychologically, physically. And it starts at a young enough age to where they can't think for themselves. By the time a child realizes what has happened, its very often times too late.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
I'm not really an expert but you seem to be dramatizing the entire aspect
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
In my experience, the goal of political correctness is not to condone any particular lifestyle or quality but to relegate judgement to those who have power to affect change. It is not useful to create a harmful stigma against fat people such that they feel shamed in everyday tasks. It is far better to create awareness and education opportunities for the friends and family of the afflicted (as well as treatment opportunities where necessary) and otherwise respect their autonomy.
We have tried traditionalism and negative reinforcement. It has not worked. Political correctness seems like a logical next step to me. Really the only draw back of this method is that we lose our catharsis.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
So instead of fixing a problem directly, let's just yell at people we dislike? Great way to solve social problems
Who needs police? People should just better protect themselves from crime.
Who needs stoplights? People should just know how to drive better.
Who needs hospitals? Just take care of yourself the best you can.
Why should we simply stop at not helping fat people lose weight--why not we stop helping all groups. Why should we help the poor? The dying? The anorexic? Why should we help the young? The old? Anyone really.
Actually, you're right. Let's simply get rid of all social programs, all government, all societal structure. Fuck helping those in need! It's their fault anyway.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
So access to cheap, fatty foods, advertisement bombarding that targets children with almost entirely fatty product and woeful health eating education has nothing to do with it right?
Neither of you probably realize how dumb you sound for trying to paint an extremely complex obesity problem as merely "its only x's fault!"
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
So instead of fixing a problem directly, let's just yell at people we dislike? Great way to solve social problems
Who needs police? People should just better protect themselves from crime.
Who needs stoplights? People should just know how to drive better.
Who needs hospitals? Just take care of yourself the best you can.
Why should we simply stop at not helping fat people lose weight--why not we stop helping all groups. Why should we help the poor? The dying? The anorexic? Why should we help the young? The old? Anyone really.
Actually, you're right. Let's simply get rid of all social programs, all government, all societal structure. Fuck helping those in need! It's their fault anyway.
Except removing government subsidies like you say has FAR REACHING impacts that you can't possibly predict. You really believe that making Food like Healthcare (Something that is widely agreed to be a terrible system in the United States) will solve the obesity problem? You also fuck people that are struggling completely over. You sentence countless people to starve because the economy just won't be able to handle that sort of thing. If all the restaurants went out of business you'd have an immense issue on your hand with employment. What exactly will this solve? You have less fat people (I guess) at the cost of the country going down in flames most likely.
Removing subsides is not like any of the things you suggested. Making food easier to obtain is actually a pretty vital thing. I don't think a government HELPING people out is a problem. I think that certain rights should be left for me to decide though. If I want to fucking eat Mcdonalds I should fucking have that right. Making food prices skyrocket is just..I mean wow. How can you think that's a good idea?
I guess I should be a bit more careful with wording things because people like to take things to impossible logical extermes around these parts. My bad.
On March 08 2012 17:29 forgottendreams wrote:
So access to cheap, fatty foods, advertisement bombarding that targets children with almost entirely fatty product and woeful health eating education has nothing to do with it right?
Neither of you probably realize how dumb you sound for trying to paint an extremely complex obesity problem as merely "its only x's fault!"
Is it really so hard for me to want parents to ...I don't know...be parents? I realize that children will eat what they want on occasion but really a parent does have the ability to gear their children's diets toward something that won't turn them into obese people. You don't become obese from eating one cheeseburger a weak. In general, it is a gradual process that can be linked to several events in a person's life ...or bad habits. Whatever you want to call them.
I realize obesity is a complex problem. I also realize that it's not just one things fault. I do, however, feel that a person's own decision making process has a LARGE PART to play in this. Sometimes people just have to take responsibilty for their actions. Some people just got fucking unlucky with their genes/medical history/what have you. Some people just over eat through their own volition.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
So access to cheap, fatty foods, advertisement bombarding that targets children with almost entirely fatty product and woeful health eating education has nothing to do with it right?
Neither of you probably realize how dumb you sound for trying to paint an extremely complex obesity problem as merely "its only x's fault!"
It is very very easy to fix the obesity problem of the US. Well, sort of. It is very easy mechanically. If you make it so there is less food for all--people would be unable to overeat, no more obesity.
Problem?
Oh right...
Companies won't make money People will starve Government will be hated (and rightfully so)
You see, the only thing making it difficult to fix the obesity problem is because we have to make sure citizens and corporations are happy. It's very simple math really. If a society is eating too much, cut off the food source, then they stop eating so much. If life was a video game, you wouldn't blame the people for eating so much you'd simply stop harvesting food so much.
However, life isn't a videogame. To solve a societal problem, we need to fix the society and not blame it for being fat.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
I bolded the key word in your phrase.
Why "blame" fat people? If they are obese purely through overeating then it really is no one's fault but their own. I am allowed to do many things but that doesn't mean i'm COMPELLED to do so. I don't want the government to protect me and keep me from making my own decisions. This is just another one of those things.
If you want to be obese hey...knock yourself out. However, if it's through your own choice don't bitch about it.
So instead of fixing a problem directly, let's just yell at people we dislike? Great way to solve social problems
Who needs police? People should just better protect themselves from crime.
Who needs stoplights? People should just know how to drive better.
Who needs hospitals? Just take care of yourself the best you can.
Why should we simply stop at not helping fat people lose weight--why not we stop helping all groups. Why should we help the poor? The dying? The anorexic? Why should we help the young? The old? Anyone really.
Actually, you're right. Let's simply get rid of all social programs, all government, all societal structure. Fuck helping those in need! It's their fault anyway.
Except removing government subsidies like you say has FAR REACHING impacts that you can't possibly predict. You really believe that making Food like Healthcare (Something that is widely agreed to be a terrible system in the United States) will solve the obesity problem? You also fuck people that are struggling completely over. You sentence countless people to starve because the economy just won't be able to handle that sort of thing. If all the restaurants went out of business you'd have an immense issue on your hand with employment. What exactly will this solve? You have less fat people (I guess) at the cost of the country going down in flames most likely.
Removing subsides is not like any of the things you suggested. Making food easier to obtain is actually a pretty vital thing. I don't think a government HELPING people out is a problem. I think that certain rights should be left for me to decide though. If I want to fucking eat Mcdonalds I should fucking have that right. Making food prices skyrocket is just..I mean wow. How can you think that's a good idea?
I guess I should be a bit more careful with wording things because people like to take things to impossible logical extermes around these parts. My bad.
So access to cheap, fatty foods, advertisement bombarding that targets children with almost entirely fatty product and woeful health eating education has nothing to do with it right?
Neither of you probably realize how dumb you sound for trying to paint an extremely complex obesity problem as merely "its only x's fault!"
Is it really so hard for me to want parents to ...I don't know...be parents? I realize that children will eat what they want on occasion but really a parent does have the ability to gear their children's diets toward something that won't turn them into obese people. You don't become obese from eating one cheeseburger a weak. In general, it is a gradual process that can be linked to several events in a person's life ...or bad habits. Whatever you want to call them.
I realize obesity is a complex problem. I also realize that it's not just one things fault. I do, however, feel that a person's own decision making process has a LARGE PART to play in this. Sometimes people just have to take responsibilty for their actions. Some people just got fucking unlucky with their genes/medical history/what have you. Some people just over eat through their own volition.
The world has lived without subsidies for far longer than it has lived with it.
Also.
Both kids and parents get affected by advertisements and societal norms. It's not simply a "parents should tell kids to stop eating" affair unless you think parents are naturally immune to the world around them?
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
Regards, VdoP
Awesome, congratulation dude. I'm sure everyone has friends or family who would be willing to help you out if you asked for it. Also having some kind of objective (other then simply lose x kilos) should play a big part too.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
Regards, VdoP
Yeah awesome, a good read to start the day
Awesome, congratulation dude. I'm sure everyone has friends or family who would be willing to help you out if you asked for it. Also having some kind of objective (other then simply lose x kilos) should play a big part too.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
lol
You don't know how junk food works do you
Mono cropping produces junk food due to a lack of resource diversity. Since corn is the only reliable source of mass produced crop--all junk food and sweets become corn starch/corn syrup based. Without monocropping this doesn't happen because who would spend millions of dollars developing something that will only be sold a few months a year?
When food prices goes up it is because there will be no more monocropping. When monocropping disappears--so too will junk food and corn syrup as we know it.
EDIT:
Also, the government is currently passing laws in an attempt to amend the main law they passed which is subsidies. Before subsidies few people had plentiful food because it was scarce and expensive. After subsidies we now expect the store to always be stocked with the same stuff throughout the year. Why pass laws telling people to stop using the excess food improperly when they could simply make food cost however much they actually cost
I find it kind of ironic that Disney World has an exhibit like this. I haven´t been there since 1994, but I bet you still would have a hard time finding a spot where you can´t see a place to buy soda, candy, hotdogs, snacks or ice cream, all covered in happy bright colors. Children are going to associate their happy day with junk food, thus imprinting the idea that junk food is happy food and food you get served at home is boring food. I would rather see Disney take responsibility by cleaning up their own amusement parks before doing an exhibit like this, although it is good they acknowledge the problem.
I love how Political Correctness and Interest Groups are overriding common sense here. Having a larger body frame may be natural, as well as a genetic disposition to store more fat, but being obese and not making any efforts to diet or exercise is NOT healthy. Reaching out to children about the dangers of obesity and strategies to overcome it is a much better idea than convincing people that is natural to be unhealthy. I could go into the entire obese people paying more into their healthcare for obesity-orientated conditions, but I think that's been beaten to death in another thread.
I don't think Disney did any wrong here, and I won't say that very often about anything Disney does, fyi. I think Disney's PR department rolled out this idea, and while this idea may have been introduced for completely different reasons (does Disney actually care about ending the obesity epidemic in the US?), it wasn't a poor decision; some good would probably have come out of this initiative, and Disney probably would have benefitted as much as the kids. Instead we have an interest group that appears to be against initiatives to fight the war on childhood obesity.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
just in regards to the ops claims that this is political correctness gone mad. im pretty sure shame has never been an effective motivator for change. its not a case of being politically correct its a case of the 'ride' having absolutely no effect on children other than making them feel worse about themselves.
on the general topic of 'political correctness gone mad'
If you want to see the amount of people that are obese due to illness go to Japan or Korea. There are around 3% obese in these countries, which means that all those people in the US that are fat are because they didn't learn to properly eat or exercise. Those things can be improved. http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide_Y#The_role_of_NPY_in_obesity Neuropeptide Y has been associated with the need to eat. Obese rats have been observed to have higher NPY mRNA and NPY release (causing them to eat more obviously) This part also says that leptin receptor mutations have occured when they were examining the rats.
Just two small hormones that can have a huge impact on metabolical level, just on the food intake level. Who knows what physiological disorders may be at work if we were to examine every obese person on the planet.. I'm sure you can actively work yourself to "normal", whatever the standards for that may be, but in some cases (if not most), the food intake, is not "just a choice to eat because it's good", but because a certain molecule is too abundant in the bloodstream causing you to have an elevated appetite most of the time.
If people question why one uses rats or say one can't compare rats to humans.. yes we can, but one has to be careful. A rat is not a human, but there is a great physiological and genetic overlap.
Anyway, back on topic.. Obesity is quite the issue and will be because it's so socially stressing. Obese people are less mobile, put a strain on themselves and the surrounding people, but this can be limited to a certain extent (if we aren't talking Jabba Teh Hutt style) However, everyone who is "normal" (there's that word again) notices the obese person and will have an opinion about it. Personally I don't really care about obesity, as long as the personality that goes along with it is fun to be around.
Also, this is something very weird, but it happens all the time and I want this social tendency to change: why is it an insult or can be viewed as mentally burdening if you call someone out on something, maybe because you want to talk about it? Like for instance, an obviously obese person, will have trouble with being called obese. Doesn't matter by whom it is, they'll just be offended. Some have found a way to cope with it and can even laugh with it, but most will have some sort of negative reaction to the situation. Social stigmas that just aren't done (the consensus of not talking about the problems to pepople with the problems), are probably more harmful than talking about it.. Aren't we living in a society where talking about problems (and being cynical about them) is the standard?
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
lol
You don't know how junk food works do you
Mono cropping produces junk food due to a lack of resource diversity. Since corn is the only reliable source of mass produced crop--all junk food and sweets become corn starch/corn syrup based. Without monocropping this doesn't happen because who would spend millions of dollars developing something that will only be sold a few months a year?
When food prices goes up it is because there will be no more monocropping. When monocropping disappears--so too will junk food and corn syrup as we know it.
EDIT:
Also, the government is currently passing laws in an attempt to amend the main law they passed which is subsidies. Before subsidies few people had plentiful food because it was scarce and expensive. After subsidies we now expect the store to always be stocked with the same stuff throughout the year. Why pass laws telling people to stop using the excess food improperly when they could simply make food cost however much they actually cost
I see you're still going with this doomsday hyperbolic language, except with smiley faces to make it a little more disarming
Really though do you have any evidence to backup these ridiculous claims, the worst estimate given by the CATO Institute (lets just take the worst possible scenario instead of the average) says that corn subsidies account for 9% of all production annually. If we lost 9% of our production to the total elimination of corn subsidies in what way imaginable will that eliminate mono-cropping or create a food shortage crisis that will force a dietary change? The 9% reduction will easily be accounted for in cost passing and importation within a year at best. I'm not arguing that we keep food subsidies, in fact I do think we should eliminate them but you are railing against a minor, possibly even spurious cause of obesity.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
It's Disneyland. Kids don't decide what they eat, kids don't decide how they live their live. They become fat because of their parents. So no, it's actually not a choice for most of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide_Y#The_role_of_NPY_in_obesity Neuropeptide Y has been associated with the need to eat. Obese rats have been observed to have higher NPY mRNA and NPY release (causing them to eat more obviously) This part also says that leptin receptor mutations have occured when they were examining the rats.
Just two small hormones that can have a huge impact on metabolical level, just on the food intake level. Who knows what physiological disorders may be at work if we were to examine every obese person on the planet.. I'm sure you can actively work yourself to "normal", whatever the standards for that may be, but in some cases (if not most), the food intake, is not "just a choice to eat because it's good", but because a certain molecule is too abundant in the bloodstream causing you to have an elevated appetite most of the time.
If people question why one uses rats or say one can't compare rats to humans.. yes we can, but one has to be careful. A rat is not a human, but there is a great physiological and genetic overlap.
Anyway, back on topic.. Obesity is quite the issue and will be because it's so socially stressing. Obese people are less mobile, put a strain on themselves and the surrounding people, but this can be limited to a certain extent (if we aren't talking Jabba Teh Hutt style) However, everyone who is "normal" (there's that word again) notices the obese person and will have an opinion about it. Personally I don't really care about obesity, as long as the personality that goes along with it is fun to be around.
Also, this is something very weird, but it happens all the time and I want this social tendency to change: why is it an insult or can be viewed as mentally burdening if you call someone out on something, maybe because you want to talk about it? Like for instance, an obviously obese person, will have trouble with being called obese. Doesn't matter by whom it is, they'll just be offended. Some have found a way to cope with it and can even laugh with it, but most will have some sort of negative reaction to the situation. Social stigmas that just aren't done (the consensus of not talking about the problems to pepople with the problems), are probably more harmful than talking about it.. Aren't we living in a society where talking about problems (and being cynical about them) is the standard?
Some people have better metabolism than others...duh. I say it its a choice because in the grand scheme genetics plays a VERY small part in it...10% maybe and that's being generous. I grew up in Romania.....u know how many obese people I knew when I lived there? ZERO. There were zero obese kids at my school, I didn't know anyone who was obese and I never even saw anyone obese walking down the street that was under 40 years old. That's because we didn't have any access to fast food or the processed shit you get in every grocery store in north america. And it was normal for every kid to play outside for hours each day because there was nothing to do inside. Of course some people were chubbier than others but when I say obese I'm talking about the kids who are 200 pounds at 10 years old and adults who are like 300-400+ pounds. In places were fast food and junk food isn't so easily accessible these people do not exist. I go back and visit every couple of years and I can already see an increase in weight in the general population since fast food and processed stuff is becoming more readily available in big cities. When it comes down to it....if you eat right and excercise you will not be obese. It's that simple. But in this society its much easier to eat crap and be lazy so its understandable that obesity is such a problem.
I think it can become some kind of a negative spiral once you're obese at a certain level. It's a choice of lifestyle when you're aware of your own lifestyle and keep exercising this lifestyle. But you can't really say that kids at the age of ten who weigh 200 pounds (which is already quite excessive imo) have chosen this lifestyle. Their parents should be the ones to blame this crappy raising attitude. Also, I'm sure the obese kid will realize at some point he's obese and he's been fed this crap all the time.. But it's not so simple to change all that. Then it will be some sort of psychological/physiological fight he's going to have in order to make his living situation any better.
On March 09 2012 02:49 Uldridge wrote: Obese people seem to be resistant to the effect leptin should invoke
. I will agree it's a choice, granted there are no freaky body changes you inherit over the years, if you become obese in later stages of your life.
By the way, same thing over here. I grew up in virtually non obese circles, but I don't think the other side is true for, generically picked country of the day, the USA for example. Also, don't underestimate genetics. It's not because you're inherited with a certain genome and certain traits become apparent in a certain stadium of life, that other traits can't pop up and mess things up if you're exposed to a certain environment. So many things are working on us and in us and the systems our body, organs, tissues, cells, proteome and genome represent are far too complex to simply say: if a --> b. It's more like: if a, b, (c), (d), e, f, ... --> then p, q, r, t, s, ...
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3bck1.jpg)
) does not eradicate the issue of both self esteem and health problems obese people have. Educating and therefore making people have more chances to do something about it, does help.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.randomfunnypicture.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/why-are-you-fat-genetics-icecream.jpg)
. This reads like the story of a South Park episode..
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_V5pM_bIduTQ/TDYrvkrtmvI/AAAAAAAAAIM/IIm0W-0fWnk/s1600/obesity+in+america.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.picturesandjokes.com/pictures/then-vs-now-5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51yPWv7hyVL._SS500_.jpg)
