Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2011, 9:15 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
:roll:

Evangelicals tend to be conservatives. Conservatives generally do not think government should be micro-managing people's lives. That includes the issue of childhood obesity.

I can guarantee they didn't classify "libertarians" as a group in their survey, but if they had, you could guess what the outcome would have been.

Just another way to take something and make it political.
What's up then with the other religious groups that are also usually conservatives and are actually happy with this?
Why should the Government do the parenting for the parents? And what's up with you misrepresenting their stance as liking obesity or being happy with kids being obese?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,433
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Mar 2011, 9:39 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
:roll:

Evangelicals tend to be conservatives. Conservatives generally do not think government should be micro-managing people's lives. That includes the issue of childhood obesity.

I can guarantee they didn't classify "libertarians" as a group in their survey, but if they had, you could guess what the outcome would have been.

Just another way to take something and make it political.
What's up then with the other religious groups that are also usually conservatives and are actually happy with this?
Why should the Government do the parenting for the parents? And what's up with you misrepresenting their stance as liking obesity or being happy with kids being obese?


The government isn't making eating the wrong foods illegal. It's only advising people to fight childhood obesity, as even the military sees this as a future problem in recruiting fit soldiers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

25 Mar 2011, 9:56 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
At one point in the show they showcased a gentlemen who had battled wieght all of his life then gave up.
He was athletic and a jogger in great form ( he won foot races) , but was a bit rotund and had a wieght that was (according to those wieght-height charts) too heavy. But it worked for him. It probably wouldve hurt his health to be thinner. He was a bit round but also had muscle tone.
He was an obese athlete.

The point being made was that with fat there is no one size fits all correct wieght.

He is probably an extreme case who isnt really a good role model for most people. But on the other hand anorexia is a common health threat. So saying "obesity is sometimes good" was porbably a bit of an overstatement. But one can go overboard with thiness.

The "fat and healthy" people are a very small portion of the population, and I would bet that that jogger would not have actually been classified as "obese" (BMI>30) but rather just overweight. Plenty of athletes (especially taller male athletes) will be labeled as overweight because of their greater muscle mass, and because the formula for BMI tends to overestimate the value for taller people.

It's pretty clear that America has a significant weight problem. According to Wolfram Alpha, my mid-range healthy BMI of 21 is among the 5.6% lowest BMI values among American men. Now, that seems pretty ridiculous if only 5.6% of American men are skinnier than me. I'm a pretty average build, and 21 is only slightly below the very middle of the healthy range (21.75). I certainly could lose a couple pounds and still be completely healthy. The great majority of Americans are heavier than they need to be.

As far as going overboard with thinness- with the exception of people struggling with anorexia, that simply is not an issue. I've seen multiple media reports talking about how some overweight people are still healthy, and some skinny people are unhealthy. This seems to me like they just want to stir up views with some counter-consensus piece, especially since fat readers don't like a moralistic lecture on how they need to lose weight.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2011, 9:58 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
:roll:

Evangelicals tend to be conservatives. Conservatives generally do not think government should be micro-managing people's lives. That includes the issue of childhood obesity.

I can guarantee they didn't classify "libertarians" as a group in their survey, but if they had, you could guess what the outcome would have been.

Just another way to take something and make it political.
What's up then with the other religious groups that are also usually conservatives and are actually happy with this?
Why should the Government do the parenting for the parents? And what's up with you misrepresenting their stance as liking obesity or being happy with kids being obese?


The government isn't making eating the wrong foods illegal. It's only advising people to fight childhood obesity, as even the military sees this as a future problem in recruiting fit soldiers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The Government is still involved in it. It's obvious that obesity is bad, the Government doesn't need to waste money on reminding people of that or whatever they're trying to do. That's what the parents are supposed to do. Parents these days are p*****s. I see kids throwing a tantrum in stores all the time whenever they don't get their chocolate bars and they're always standing there like "OMG what am I gonna do?". Be a real parent and don't give into it, that's what you gotta do instead of caving in to em every time they throw a tantrum. How is the kid gonna learn personal responsibility if you can't take on the personal responsibility of being a parent?



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Mar 2011, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

25 Mar 2011, 10:02 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Why should the Government do the parenting for the parents? And what's up with you misrepresenting their stance as liking obesity or being happy with kids being obese?

As Kraichgauer said, this isn't about making some foods illegal, but it is a prominent public figure advocating for positive changes in society. There are important social and economic costs to obesity, and as long as it stops well short of government-mandated diet and exercise programs, I do not object to efforts to solve these problems.

For the record, conservatives have often been in favor of censorship, and I have seen conservatives arguing that American parents and families have a right to call on the aid of their government in protecting their children from dirty song lyrics. Nothing that has been proposed to combat obesity rises to nearly that level of government interference. If you're going to complain about government doing the parenting, it is necessary to look at the right wing just as closely. (And yes, Ace, I know you are not one of those pro-censorship right-wingers, that wasn't directed at you personally)


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,629

25 Mar 2011, 10:03 pm

Probably because they like to eat donuts.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Mar 2011, 10:16 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
The Government is still involved in it. It's obvious that obesity is bad, the Government doesn't need to waste money on reminding people of that or whatever they're trying to do. That's what the parents are supposed to do. Rant about parents and the modern society all being wrong


Obesity is an economic issue for a country. This is not different to governments sponsoring sex education or telling people why they should not get more credit than they can pay. All very obvious things that for some reason most people don't get.
Sex education isn't nearly as cut and dried as obesity. Everyone knows eating too much chocolate will make you fat, but how would a little girl know why she's bleeding outta her p**** without sex ed? And how about growing up instead of resorting to condescension, false equivalencies, and straw men every chance you get?

EDIT: Wonderful, you deleted your post. Do you always bail out like this?

Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Why should the Government do the parenting for the parents? And what's up with you misrepresenting their stance as liking obesity or being happy with kids being obese?

As Kraichgauer said, this isn't about making some foods illegal, but it is a prominent public figure advocating for positive changes in society. There are important social and economic costs to obesity, and as long as it stops well short of government-mandated diet and exercise programs, I do not object to efforts to solve these problems.

For the record, conservatives have often been in favor of censorship, and I have seen conservatives arguing that American parents and families have a right to call on the aid of their government in protecting their children from dirty song lyrics. Nothing that has been proposed to combat obesity rises to nearly that level of government interference. If you're going to complain about government doing the parenting, it is necessary to look at the right wing just as closely. (And yes, Ace, I know you are not one of those pro-censorship right-wingers, that wasn't directed at you personally)
I was gonna say "When have I ever resorted to sucking Conserative dick?" until I got to that part. I'm against too much Government influence socially and fiscally. I know for a fact Conservatives are family oriented while libertarians are a lot more individualist, but it is hypocritical to ask the Government to ban things when you could just block some f*****g channels yourself instead of having the Government babysit your kids. And yes I'm aware that conservatives are in favour of censorship when it threatens their family values.

I still object to this. There's enough info out there to know that obesity is bad, and plus all our foods are labeled these days so nothing is stopping you from making an informed decision about what you and your kids eat. Yes it is the Government that labels my food with the ingredients and such, and I have nothing against the FDA labeling food.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 25 Mar 2011, 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

25 Mar 2011, 11:58 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
I still object to this. There's enough info out there to know that obesity is bad, and plus all our foods are labeled these days so nothing is stopping you from making an informed decision about what you and your kids eat. Yes it is the Government that labels my food with the ingredients and such, and I have nothing against the FDA labeling food.

Once again... this is not about government mandating what you can and can't eat. There is not going to be a law banning donuts and twinkies. Anyone who wants to be a fat lazy slob is still entirely free to do so. As part of their public health efforts, the government can promote healthy lifestyles and provide information to citizens. I really don't see the objection to that.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,532
Location: Alberta Canada

26 Mar 2011, 12:05 am

Orwell wrote:
It's pretty clear that America has a significant weight problem. According to Wolfram Alpha, my mid-range healthy BMI of 21 is among the 5.6% lowest BMI values among American men. Now, that seems pretty ridiculous if only 5.6% of American men are skinnier than me. I'm a pretty average build, and 21 is only slightly below the very middle of the healthy range (21.75). I certainly could lose a couple pounds and still be completely healthy. The great majority of Americans are heavier than they need to be.


Right. At 18 I was 180 lbs and 6 feet. I was bony and thin, and yet according to BMI, I was borderline overweight. I wasnt even muscular. My sister is searching for a picture. Its pretty clear that I was skinny as a rake.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Mar 2011, 12:06 am

Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I still object to this. There's enough info out there to know that obesity is bad, and plus all our foods are labeled these days so nothing is stopping you from making an informed decision about what you and your kids eat. Yes it is the Government that labels my food with the ingredients and such, and I have nothing against the FDA labeling food.

Once again... this is not about government mandating what you can and can't eat. There is not going to be a law banning donuts and twinkies. Anyone who wants to be a fat lazy slob is still entirely free to do so. As part of their public health efforts, the government can promote healthy lifestyles and provide information to citizens. I really don't see the objection to that.
I didn't say it was about the Government making junk food illegal. But there's more than enough info out there pertaining to obesity other than the obvious fact that being fat is not good for you. The Government doesn't need to waste tax dollars on it and I doubt it will have any real effect since there's enough self-help bullcrap out there that hasn't done s**t for people's lives. The self-help stuff that is actually helpful usually involves a long, hard process and it requires your choice to commit to this process.

Here are some simple rules to not being fat.

1) Eat 6 small meals instead of 3 big ones (Back then eating wasn't as convenient as going down to the grocery store so your body is designed to hoard fat if you eat a lot at once)
2) Exercise up to 45 mins since catabolic hormones are released after that
3) Have a lot of protein in your diet since it boosts metabolism
4) Exercise Mon-Wed-Fri
5) Drink cold water since maintaining homeostasis takes energy which requires burning calories

Easier said than done right? Well that's the point, what the Government says isn't gonna motivate you any more than what I'm saying, hence its futility.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

26 Mar 2011, 12:23 am

Fuzzy wrote:
Orwell wrote:
It's pretty clear that America has a significant weight problem. According to Wolfram Alpha, my mid-range healthy BMI of 21 is among the 5.6% lowest BMI values among American men. Now, that seems pretty ridiculous if only 5.6% of American men are skinnier than me. I'm a pretty average build, and 21 is only slightly below the very middle of the healthy range (21.75). I certainly could lose a couple pounds and still be completely healthy. The great majority of Americans are heavier than they need to be.


Right. At 18 I was 180 lbs and 6 feet. I was bony and thin, and yet according to BMI, I was borderline overweight. I wasnt even muscular. My sister is searching for a picture. Its pretty clear that I was skinny as a rake.

That's out of the ordinary, but there's obviously always a range. Depending on build (and ethnic background, to some extent) 180lbs isn't really that high for someone 6' tall. On the other hand, roommate is 6'1" and just over 120lbs- now that is skinny.

One thing to consider is that BMI loses accuracy as you move away from median heights. The formula is mass/height^2 (in kg and m), but mass in humans doesn't actually scale by the square of the height, unless you imagine that tall people are just stretched-up versions of short people, which would look very bizarre (the typical 6'2" person is almost certainly broader-shouldered than someone at 5'3"). If tall people were just scaled-up versions of short people in all dimensions, the correct formula would be mass/height^3, but that's not right either- taller people on average have a slightly slimmer build (relatively speaking) than short people. Look at a typical basketball player to see what I mean- they look somewhat lanky and thin relative to their height. The "real" formula should have an exponent somewhere between 2 and 3. I think one study estimated 2.6 as being most accurate for America, and Canada would likely be similar. You might have a build that is closer to just looking like a scaled-up short person, rather than a vertically-stretched short person, which would throw off the BMI calculation.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

26 Mar 2011, 12:32 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't say it was about the Government making junk food illegal. But there's more than enough info out there pertaining to obesity other than the obvious fact that being fat is not good for you. The Government doesn't need to waste tax dollars on it and I doubt it will have any real effect since there's enough self-help bullcrap out there that hasn't done sh** for people's lives. The self-help stuff that is actually helpful usually involves a long, hard process and it requires your choice to commit to this process.

The government can do a lot to help, though, and it really isn't that expensive. Seriously, there is a lot of wasteful spending to look at before anti-obesity programs even register on the scale at all.

Quote:
Here are some simple rules to not being fat.

1) Eat 6 small meals instead of 3 big ones (Back then eating wasn't as convenient as going down to the grocery store so your body is designed to hoard fat if you eat a lot at once)

That's not such great advice unless coupled with more specific recommendations on portion control. I probably eat 2 meals a day on average, and when I eat it's usually fairly large amounts.

Quote:
2) Exercise up to 45 mins since catabolic hormones are released after that

Daunting for most sedentary people. Small amounts of exercise here and there are easier to manage and not as strenuous, and make a good first step towards getting in shape.

Quote:
3) Have a lot of protein in your diet since it boosts metabolism

High-protein foods are often high-fat, high-calorie, and high-cholesterol as well.

Quote:
Easier said than done right? Well that's the point, what the Government says isn't gonna motivate you any more than what I'm saying, hence its futility.

The government has much more of a bully pulpit than you do. And things such as what public schools feed their students at lunch time are legitimate policy questions. Cut out the fries and tater tots and give them fruits and veggies. Phys Ed classes could be expanded in some cases. Health classes that are already mandatory could spend a little more class time talking about healthy diet and exercise choices.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,433
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

26 Mar 2011, 12:52 am

Schools could go a long way by emphasizing calisthenics, weight training, and running/jogging in gym class, rather than team sports in which only a few of the students (jocks) excel in. I can speak from personal experience - back in school, when we were told to play football, basketball, baseball, etc., most of us didn't have the skill or inclination to participate to the extent in which we would have gained any significant exercise from.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,774
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

26 Mar 2011, 1:15 am

Orwell wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
I didn't say it was about the Government making junk food illegal. But there's more than enough info out there pertaining to obesity other than the obvious fact that being fat is not good for you. The Government doesn't need to waste tax dollars on it and I doubt it will have any real effect since there's enough self-help bullcrap out there that hasn't done sh** for people's lives. The self-help stuff that is actually helpful usually involves a long, hard process and it requires your choice to commit to this process.

The government can do a lot to help, though, and it really isn't that expensive. Seriously, there is a lot of wasteful spending to look at before anti-obesity programs even register on the scale at all.
Yeah there's definitely much worse waste but any waste is no good. Keep it high speed and low drag.

Quote:
Here are some simple rules to not being fat.

Orwell wrote:
1) Eat 6 small meals instead of 3 big ones (Back then eating wasn't as convenient as going down to the grocery store so your body is designed to hoard fat if you eat a lot at once)

That's not such great advice unless coupled with more specific recommendations on portion control. I probably eat 2 meals a day on average, and when I eat it's usually fairly large amounts.
It's a rule of thumb and yes it is great advice. We used to hunt back then rather than go down to the nearest grocery store, so your body will hoard fat if you eat big meals. If you eat small meals however, you body will stop hoarding it and it will raise metabolism accordingly and burn fat.

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
2) Exercise up to 45 mins since catabolic hormones are released after that

Daunting for most sedentary people. Small amounts of exercise here and there are easier to manage and not as strenuous, and make a good first step towards getting in shape.
Newton's first law can also be relevant to the human mind. We are generally resistant to change, and there is considerable inertia. So yes take small steps and get the ball rolling.

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
3) Have a lot of protein in your diet since it boosts metabolism

High-protein foods are often high-fat, high-calorie, and high-cholesterol as well.
Too much sodium is your biggest enemy. Foods high in fat aren't nearly as bad as pop. Drinking is faster than eating. Sodium causes water retention which means if the water isn't released then it causes weight gain.

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
Easier said than done right? Well that's the point, what the Government says isn't gonna motivate you any more than what I'm saying, hence its futility.

The government has much more of a bully pulpit than you do. And things such as what public schools feed their students at lunch time are legitimate policy questions. Cut out the fries and tater tots and give them fruits and veggies. Phys Ed classes could be expanded in some cases. Health classes that are already mandatory could spend a little more class time talking about healthy diet and exercise choices.
Yes they need to put some damn fruits and veggies into the cafes and if the kids want fries and such they can go to the nearest store that was em. Most of my phys ed teachers were clowns who didn't know wtf they were talking about, so I think better certification is needed. Bouncing while stretching is an obvious no-no, and one of my teachers even perpetuated the myth that pumping too much iron will stunt your growth in my high school. Running and jumping puts 6 to 8 times more force than your weight against you so why hasn't that stunted my growth? Generally you don't wanna put too much stress on your joints since it risks damaging your growth plate which is really responsible for growth stunting, but that's a matter of bad technique and using too much weight which you should avoid whether you're a teen or an adult and is not an inherent danger of weight lifting itself.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

26 Mar 2011, 9:53 am

Quote:
Yeah there's definitely much worse waste but any waste is no good. Keep it high speed and low drag.
First need to prove it is a waste. When we worry about spending, you would have to focus on the large ones. A program that wastes thousands of dollars is literally nothing compared with trillions lost in bailouts and tax cuts.


_________________
.