Obesity
Nov 6 2009, 11:26 pm
By: Centreri
Pages: < 1 5 6 7 8 9 >
 

Mar 5 2010, 9:16 pm Loser_Musician Post #121



Being "Healthy" and "Skinny" are two completey different things.

Being skinny is simple and kind of easy. It's called, don't eat so much. Quantity over Quality.

All exercise really burns, is motivation to lose weight.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 5 2010, 9:22 pm by Loser_Musician.



Creator of Death Knights Trilogy.

Newest Game: http://store.steampowered.com/app/684000/Wooden_Ocean/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/

Mar 6 2010, 4:09 am rockz Post #122

ᴄʜᴇᴇsᴇ ɪᴛ!

Quote from phlemhacker
I heard an opinion on T.V. that piqued my curiosity. Basically he said we should get after fat people the same way we get after people about smoking. I agree, if we weren't so sensitive and actually let people know they were not a healthy weight, they might get on it instead letting them think they aren't. That said, I do think cheap junk food is part of the problem. I know I've experienced it in the form of the "freshman fifteen". Weight loss is quite simply using more calories than you ingest which is why exercising and eating right are ultimately the best things you can do.
I lost weight during my freshman 15 and thesis 30 years. Then again I gained weight over sophomore, junior, and senior high year. The problem is fat people only slightly inconvenience others. Smoking smells terrible to some, and has the whole secondary smoke thing. Fat people may smell, but not because they are fat. About the only thing is when fat people won't fit into some area properly, namely doors, chairs, and especially airlines.



"Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman - do we have to call the Gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"

Mar 6 2010, 4:22 pm CecilSunkure Post #123



Quote from rockz
Quote from phlemhacker
I heard an opinion on T.V. that piqued my curiosity. Basically he said we should get after fat people the same way we get after people about smoking. I agree, if we weren't so sensitive and actually let people know they were not a healthy weight, they might get on it instead letting them think they aren't. That said, I do think cheap junk food is part of the problem. I know I've experienced it in the form of the "freshman fifteen". Weight loss is quite simply using more calories than you ingest which is why exercising and eating right are ultimately the best things you can do.
I lost weight during my freshman 15 and thesis 30 years. Then again I gained weight over sophomore, junior, and senior high year. The problem is fat people only slightly inconvenience others. Smoking smells terrible to some, and has the whole secondary smoke thing. Fat people may smell, but not because they are fat. About the only thing is when fat people won't fit into some area properly, namely doors, chairs, and especially airlines.
Or become unhealthy due to their weight and then file for health benefits, which are paid for by tax dollars.



None.

Mar 6 2010, 10:32 pm phlemhacker Post #124



Quote from rockz
Quote from phlemhacker
I heard an opinion on T.V. that piqued my curiosity. Basically he said we should get after fat people the same way we get after people about smoking. I agree, if we weren't so sensitive and actually let people know they were not a healthy weight, they might get on it instead letting them think they aren't. That said, I do think cheap junk food is part of the problem. I know I've experienced it in the form of the "freshman fifteen". Weight loss is quite simply using more calories than you ingest which is why exercising and eating right are ultimately the best things you can do.
I lost weight during my freshman 15 and thesis 30 years. Then again I gained weight over sophomore, junior, and senior high year. The problem is fat people only slightly inconvenience others. Smoking smells terrible to some, and has the whole secondary smoke thing. Fat people may smell, but not because they are fat. About the only thing is when fat people won't fit into some area properly, namely doors, chairs, and especially airlines.

About that, I seriously think that if they are spilling over into next the seat they should be charged for it. Then they don't have to inconvenience anyone.



None.

Dec 31 2010, 6:56 am Centreri Post #125

Relatively ancient and inactive

Quote from Vrael
For example, would foods like whole milk be taxed? Based on this: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/69/2 milk has a very high saturated fat content, but from my experiences it's hardly likely that whole milk is responsible for the obesity in America. If the taxation is based on some "fat content" percentage, it will completely miss foods like soda: http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6298/2 which have 0 calories from fat, but which we know are unhealthy just from personal experience. It's really the people who go to McDonalds and get the Supersize Everything (coke/pepsi, burgers, ect) all the time that are the problem folks in my experience, so would only McDonalds/Burger King be taxed? Oreos? Chocolate Chip Cookies? Sugar itself? At this point in the conversation I can hardly think we can just say "oh a government committee will take care of all these details." After all, we could someday be on that government committee... Really the root of the problem seems to be the people that just can't put down the twinkies (/mcdonalds/burger king/candy bars/oreos ect) which leads me to question the effectiveness of this scheme again. At first glance it seems simple: tax the fatty/sugary foods and watch the waistlines shrink, but is it really feasible to tax any food which could contribute to the problem? Maybe, but at this point it almost seems easier to take a leaf out of japan's book and institute a mandatory waistline limit, and anyone who goes over pays a fine. Or not even a waistline limit, but some mandatory "healthiness" test, maybe you run a mile, get weighed, do X pushups, ect and if you meet 90% of the tests you're declared "healthy" or something. If you don't meet the limits, the government takes over your life until you do. Typically I don't advocate totalitarian positions, but as a solution it may have its merits.
I'm not arguing for the specifics; that's for the government to decide. I'm not necessarily against whole milk in particular, because it's better than skim for small children, and, as noted, it's unlikely that it's a major contributor to nationwide Obesity. However, McDonalds, Burger King, Oreos, Chocolate Chip Cookies, yes, these would probably be taxed, though different products would be in different brackets. Sugar... I don't think we need a huge 20x jump on this tax like I want on McDonalds, but I suppose some jump would be nice. Again, I'm here arguing for the general idea. I'm not the United States government, I'm not a special commision that needs to implement this in an acceptable fashion, I'm a guy proposing a general idea. As for the waistline limit, I already proposed something similar to be implemented in parallel with the food taxes in the first post ("directly tax people for being obese").

Quote from Vrael
Of course, as I've already mentioned, this would produce HELL in the courts to implement. I doubt any session of congress ever will have the balls it takes to pass legislation of this sort, it would hurt everyone's constituants (and hence their reelection votes), the republicans would cry and whine about civil rights and the democrats can't get their heads far enough out of their asses to write up a half decent bill -- but assuming we had a bunch of competent electors one year, there would be some serious issues concerning the "equal protection" clause in the 14th amendment at least, though the 16th does grant the congress the right to tax "without regard to any census or enumeration"
Yeah, I don't see it happening either. Shame.

Quote from rockz
It would be a good thing if whole milk cost more than 2%, which cost more than 1%, which cost more than skim. Sodas are awfully cheap too, and a similar tax on non-diet sodas could work, but I'm doubtful.

It would be easier to just kill the fat people rather than take over their life. It's better to let it be, as any sort of legislation on it will just add to the CF that is government.

The root of the problem isn't just what we eat, it's how little we do. We drive everywhere. We go to our job/school and sit for eight hours. We come home, lay back and watch tv. Even though we eat unhealthy foods, there are many people who eat the same foods, and are perfectly healthy. That's usually because they are active.

Exercise doesn't work for me (I wish it did, though), since I don't enjoy it and I'm lazy.
Killing people is even less likely to make it through Congress than my idea.

You're right, of course, about the exercise; however, it isn't really practical to have an entire country exercising excessively. It ain't gonna happen. Controlling what you eat is an easier way to watch your health, and while some exercise is good, it isn't necessary.



None.

Dec 31 2010, 9:12 pm JaFF Post #126



Quote from Centreri
Quote from rockz
It would be a good thing if whole milk cost more than 2%, which cost more than 1%, which cost more than skim. Sodas are awfully cheap too, and a similar tax on non-diet sodas could work, but I'm doubtful.

It would be easier to just kill the fat people rather than take over their life. It's better to let it be, as any sort of legislation on it will just add to the CF that is government.

The root of the problem isn't just what we eat, it's how little we do. We drive everywhere. We go to our job/school and sit for eight hours. We come home, lay back and watch tv. Even though we eat unhealthy foods, there are many people who eat the same foods, and are perfectly healthy. That's usually because they are active.

Exercise doesn't work for me (I wish it did, though), since I don't enjoy it and I'm lazy.
Killing people is even less likely to make it through Congress than my idea.

You're right, of course, about the exercise; however, it isn't really practical to have an entire country exercising excessively. It ain't gonna happen. Controlling what you eat is an easier way to watch your health, and while some exercise is good, it isn't necessary.
Look at Japan: a whole corporate culture exists around exercise, yet the corporations don't really control what people eat. Passing a law that says that companies must arrange mandatory, simple exercise sessions for their employees is much easier than taxing a lot of big, powerful corporations.



None.

Dec 31 2010, 10:12 pm Centreri Post #127

Relatively ancient and inactive

That would decrease worker productivity and the effectiveness is questionable - many might replace their own daily exercise with that from the job. It's a possible solution, but I find food-control and obesity taxation to be more to my taste.



None.

Dec 31 2010, 11:20 pm Vrael Post #128



Whole milk does cost more than 2%, which costs more than 1%, which costs more than skim milk. By about 10 cents, which is pretty fair.

Quote from Centreri
Controlling what you eat is an easier way to watch your health, and while some exercise is good, it isn't necessary.
Exercise is necessary to maintaining proper health. Even skinny people can be unhealthy if they don't exercise.
Quote from name:Carbs">http://www.staredit.net/273544/]Carbs aren't bad for you. Just like lots of calories aren't bad for you. The part that is bad for you comes from not having the physical activity to help your body process all that stuff. If you don't run around and shit, your body takes the food you eat and sticks it in storage, instead of using it to build muscle and fix tissue and improve your cardiovascular system and all that good stuff that comes from exercise. There are probably (almost literally here) 1000 good benefits to exercise. All it takes is say, 1 mile jog a day. That'll get your heart rate up, which increases bloodflow everywhere in your body. As your body runs low on oxygen it will start burning lactic acid, which prompts your body to work on increasing oxygen efficiency because it likes burning oxygen more than burning lactic acid. As you run, your leg muscles get use, your heart has to work harder, which means your body will start converting body fat into useful materials for strengthening your heart and legs. A stronger heart means you'll be getting more blood to your brain, and standing up won't be such a chore for it.
As evinced by that topic on SEN.

Personally I think the best solution to the problem is socially ostracizing people who are fat for no reason, no legislation required. That way they'll all go kill themselves and we won't have to deal with fat people anymore. Or maybe they'll just do something about it.



None.

Jan 1 2011, 3:20 am Centreri Post #129

Relatively ancient and inactive

Good luck having that happen without legislation. There isn't any way to spur social changes if you don't do anything, Vrael.

On the topic of exercise - yes, it's good for you; yes, you need some level of it to be healthy. However, it's likely more challenging to design effective legislation on this front, and unlike my taxation scheme, it has more palpable downsides - if you do it through the corporations, then you'll have reduced worker productivity due to less time spent actually doing the job. It may detract from independent exercise and ends up with the same separation between obese and fit if you optimize it to exempt the fit from the timewaster that is exercise.



None.

Jan 1 2011, 8:58 pm Rantent Post #130



What makes a food healthy? Current trends set by health gurus?
Food is a whole lot more complicated than "good food" and "bad food". Also, taxing unhealthy foods won't affect just obese people, but also those who enjoy those types of food and are healthy.

What I would imagine would have greater impact is to put taxation on transportation. You want people to exercise, make them walk to wherever their going. Don't make it so easy to enjoy a meal in a car, without once stepping outside.



None.

Jan 1 2011, 9:35 pm Centreri Post #131

Relatively ancient and inactive

You need to think about the ramifications of your ideas, Rantent. America's suburbia is based on the idea personal transportation by automotives. Without a vast increase in public transportation spending (to the point of inefficiency, because of how suburbia is organized - it's just not practical to spend so much on buses), doing that is no better than flat out taxation on America's middle class. My idea is a bit more contained.



None.

Jan 2 2011, 11:33 am BeDazed Post #132



Well. You could simply outright tax people with obese amount of body fat in their bodies.



None.

Jan 2 2011, 2:55 pm Centreri Post #133

Relatively ancient and inactive

If you reread my first post, that was one of my two proposals.



None.

Jan 2 2011, 3:50 pm NicholasBeige Post #134



Who actually remembers, around 2002/3 when the WHO (World Health Organisation) and various other medical societies, BMJ (British Medical Journal) and I'm sure some American ones also... all got together and literally 'redefined' what it is to be 'obese'?

It was a global thing. You can google it, it'll come up. Basically, the mathematical numbers which render you 'obese' were lowered, so that a far higher proportion of people, globally, fell under the 'obese' category.

Ironic how at the same time all the food producers and markets started rebranding and renaming products with 'health' as their priority... The actual nutritional content of these products changed very slightly, but their packaging and everything else was now all about 'lower cholesterol' and '80% less salt*'.

To get back on topic, if you want to tax all fatty foods then all you will do is make the 'fat cats' richer. Excuse the pun. Where will this money go? Certainly it won't benefit society at all. In fact, it will most likely damage the economy as a whole. Can you imagine how much money McDonalds/Burger King/Wimpy/etc will lose if all of a sudden their products become 50 to 100% more expensive? STUPID idea!

Let the fat people be fat, it's their own problem. And if you are under some illusion that their 'being fat' is costing you - then that's just some messed up idea that you got in your head somewhere.



None.

Jan 2 2011, 4:23 pm Fire_Kame Post #135

a left leaning coexistence nut

The funny thing is that you're all trying to create an economic imperative for people who are out of shape. But in reality that existed before with the health insurance system we used to have. But if it is socialized, what reason do I have to get healthy if I can have dialysis until I die should I give myself diabetes, triple bypass surgery should I have a heart attack, and cholesterol meds should I not watch it? Not that I say I agree with that. But that is the typical mindset of people out of shape.

And I would also like to point out that the problem with the healthcare system before was that it didn't differentiate between problems that were genetic/unavoidable and self induced problems. I have no problem with overweight people having to pay more for insurance in the same way that I think bad drivers should pay more for their auto insurance.




Jan 2 2011, 5:33 pm Centreri Post #136

Relatively ancient and inactive

Cardinal. If you don't fucking read anything in the thread, don't come in here and aggressively call me wrong. The reason it's not just their fucking problem? As Kame said (and me, and a ton of other people), medicare, medicaid. The government pays for the fat morons getting their solutions. And everything else you've addressed has also been addressed by me already.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2011, 9:37 pm by Centreri.



None.

Jan 3 2011, 12:35 am BeDazed Post #137



Although, fun idea. This could actually be our genius solution to reduce overpopulation!
On other side of the world, Starvation!
On America, DIE OF FAT DISEASE. Overpopulation problem solved.

Quote
Let the fat people be fat, it's their own problem. And if you are under some illusion that their 'being fat' is costing you - then that's just some messed up idea that you got in your head somewhere.
It's not a messed up idea. It's rather a simple idea. Just a very simple example. Maybe you'll understand. It's in a list of simplified order that lets you understand what messes you up. When there is something big, most do not realize there was a large sum of simple things before it.

Fat people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are fat.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.



None.

Jan 3 2011, 12:52 am Fire_Kame Post #138

a left leaning coexistence nut

Mexican people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are mexican.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Black people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are black.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Crippled people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are crippled.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


White people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are white.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Arab people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are Arab.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Anorexic people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are Anorexic.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Old people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are old.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


DevliN-like people are there. Lots of them.
They can't work for shit because they are like DevliN.
Productivity is decreased.
As a result, stock prices go down.
And because of that all the stocks are sold.
Investors pull their monay.
Company fails. Lots of them.
Depression starts. And YOU TAKE THE BIG HIT.


Your argument doesn't make any god damn sense! Any. At all.




Jan 3 2011, 1:00 am BeDazed Post #139



It's funny. Even when the insane troll logic fails, that sort of is true. Except for race generics and DevliN. For one, I cannot say for all of a race. For two, I don't know DevliN well enough to assume he would make us fail hard.

It's an established fact that people will start feeling the pressure under lots of old people, or otherwise other people who are unproductive. Likewise, crippled, anorexic. It just defines we do have to do something about fat people.



None.

Jan 3 2011, 1:04 am Fire_Kame Post #140

a left leaning coexistence nut

When you can prove to me you know every fat person well enough to say they are all lazy and useless, I'll rejoin this conversation.




Options
Pages: < 1 5 6 7 8 9 >
  Back to forum
Please log in to reply to this topic or to report it.
Members in this topic: None.
[07:11 am]
Corbo -- this is spam
[09:02 pm]
Corbo -- lmao
[11:12 am]
Roy -- I'm pretty sure the FTP protocol support broke at some point, so it's secure™.
[2019-12-06. : 10:54 pm]
NudeRaider -- better nudge him on discord
[2019-12-06. : 10:35 pm]
MTiger156 -- Devlin was last active in February, so its not like hes 100% dead. Hopefully my PM won't get buried by other peeps trying to contact him.
[2019-12-06. : 9:04 pm]
RIVE -- Big facts
[2019-12-06. : 8:23 pm]
Vrael -- just don't use the search box
[2019-12-06. : 8:23 pm]
Vrael -- SEN is as watertight as a frog's butt
[2019-12-06. : 7:45 pm]
Suicidal Insanity -- SEN? Secure? lawl never thought I'd see that
[2019-12-06. : 6:32 pm]
MTiger156 -- Been playing around with the API's i was able to dig up in the javascript. Seems there's more to it than just forcing parameter values. Security pretty tight up in here.
Please log in to shout.


Members Online: Roy, O)FaRTy1billion[MM]