As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

N.M. v. Gamers: Proposing Tax on Video Games to Fight Obiesity...

ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
edited January 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Story: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080125230108.k05u9plm&show_article=1

In my opinion, a poor attempt to rile up the usual suspects who would support a "sin tax" - ie: taxing alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, etc. - that will most likely die on the vine.

But it's nice to know they are thinking about us.

Yet it comes from the most unlikely of groups, the Sierra Club. When not saving lynx's and endangered waterfoul, they are now trying to save teenagers.

On another tangent, "poor school performance" my ass. They want better performance they have a lot more to hang on high school grades than fucking GTAIV. *white hot fury*

Anyway, discuss.

Zahaladeen on
«134

Posts

  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    From a linked article:
    New research discounts a common theory on why poor children are more likely to be overweight than children from wealthier families. Iowa State University researchers say their analysis shows that a lack of food isn't necessarily to blame, although they're not sure why so many children from low-income families are overweight.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    I find myself not really outraged. Fat little fuckers could use a few hours off the Playstation.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's bullshit. They're just trying to score cheap political points.

    Want to really help fight obesity? Institute a tax on all products containing high-fructose corn syrup.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    It's bullshit. They're just trying to score cheap political points.

    Want to really help fight obesity? Institute a tax on all products containing high-fructose corn syrup.

    If they did that, all the midwestern farm lobbies would combine to form Voltron and shove their blazing sword up New Mexico's ass.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    It's bullshit. They're just trying to score cheap political points.

    Want to really help fight obesity? Institute a tax on all products containing high-fructose corn syrup.

    If they did that, all the midwestern farm lobbies would combine to form Voltron and shove their blazing sword up New Mexico's ass.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... *hiccup*

    Hahahahahaha, hehe, hahahahaha.

    *cough*

    Was funny.

    Zahaladeen on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Regardless, a tax on things like consumer electronics or fatty foods wouldn't have much effect unless they were so onerous as to be unfair. And even then, it would just get people to buy cheaper televisions and cheaper game consoles.

    Meanwhile, all the money going to Fight Obesity! would still just wind up pissed away on unrelated garbage, like all sin taxes do. If it mirrors the tobacco tax scenario, the revenue will probably just be channeled into subsidies for RCA and Microsoft.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    Smoking rates have fallen pretty dramatically over the past several years, Jeff. As stupid as those smoking cessation and education programs seem, something appears to be working.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    The goals of the bill are to improve the academic performances of our kids, to promote a more healthy lifestyle and to provide our children with outdoor learning experiences, using our state parks and public lands as classrooms," he said.

    Aren't state parks and public lands already being funded by taxes?

    chamberlain on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Smoking rates have fallen pretty dramatically over the past several years, Jeff. As stupid as those smoking cessation and education programs seem, something appears to be working.

    So if we create a 20-40% tax on televisions, then maybe we'll see a drop in obesity rates after a couple decades or so?

    Boffo.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Smoking rates have fallen pretty dramatically over the past several years, Jeff. As stupid as those smoking cessation and education programs seem, something appears to be working.

    So if we create a 20-40% tax on televisions, then maybe we'll see a drop in obesity rates after a couple decades or so?

    Boffo.

    Well even then it's iffy given all the various contributing factors that have lead to obesity.

    Leitner on
  • Options
    ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trying to pin obiesity, social disfunction, poor academic achievement, ALL on gaming is a hard pill to swallow. Simpley, this is the Sierra Club trying to tax people who want to stay indoors rather than frolic responsibly in their pristine environs. Nothing like representing a lobby that the current generation of young Americans could give a toss about.

    There are so many layers of rubbish here it's difficult to even pierce the top level of strata, but since gaming doesn't have a legit, or politically viable lobby to counteract this type of gibberish then gaming will keep taking the hits.

    After all, no one ever lost points slapping around video games or gamers.

    Unless, of course, you are Cooper Lawrence.

    http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/01/mass-effect-m-1.html

    Zahaladeen on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Smoking rates have fallen pretty dramatically over the past several years, Jeff. As stupid as those smoking cessation and education programs seem, something appears to be working.

    So if we create a 20-40% tax on televisions, then maybe we'll see a drop in obesity rates after a couple decades or so?

    Boffo.

    There have been some proposals to tax "convenience food" or whatever your preferred term is, and maybe use the money to subsidize healthy foods. As much as people piss and moan about anything getting in the way of their slovenly habits, this really is a public health issue. If there were some disease that killed as many people as does obesity, people would be wearing around lapel pins and donating money and so forth.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    Ant000Ant000 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    It's a lot easier to enjoy games responsibly than the food lining the shelves at your local 7-11. Video games seems sort of ancillary to the crappy and super cheap food that is consumed while gaming as well as vegging out doing a hundred other things.

    Access to fresh and quality produce seems to be increasingly difficult for low income earners to even locate, let alone afford. Maybe throw some junk food tax revenue in that direction? HFCS shows just how effective that can be in spurring ubiquitous consumption!

    Ant000 on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    There have been some proposals to tax "convenience food" or whatever your preferred term is, and maybe use the money to subsidize healthy foods. As much as people piss and moan about anything getting in the way of their slovenly habits, this really is a public health issue. If there were some disease that killed as many people as does obesity, people would be wearing around lapel pins and donating money and so forth.

    A big problem is the fact that there's no easy divide between healthy and unhealthy foods. What about milk? Cheese? White bread? Hamburger meat? That shit will kill you just as fast as Sugar Lard Puffs, if eaten in the quantities these bloated little munchkins are accustomed to. So sure, you stave off some empty sugar calories and replace them with some different empty carbs and maybe a brick of fat.

    And really, that'll just drive the people to cheaper, yet equally unhealthy, alternatives. Instead of Cheetos they go with the generic equivalent, and pay the same cost as they were before. Or maybe they'll just get the same lazy, unhealthy foods they were before, and take the remainder out of their budget for vegetables and fruits.

    The problem is that people are a bunch of lazy fucks who can't be arsed to cook. I don't see taxes changing that.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Oh man, I thought this was national. Thank God it's just New Mexico.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    There have been some proposals to tax "convenience food" or whatever your preferred term is, and maybe use the money to subsidize healthy foods. As much as people piss and moan about anything getting in the way of their slovenly habits, this really is a public health issue. If there were some disease that killed as many people as does obesity, people would be wearing around lapel pins and donating money and so forth.

    A big problem is the fact that there's no easy divide between healthy and unhealthy foods. What about milk? Cheese? White bread? Hamburger meat? That shit will kill you just as fast as Sugar Lard Puffs, if eaten in the quantities these bloated little munchkins are accustomed to. So sure, you stave off some empty sugar calories and replace them with some different empty carbs and maybe a brick of fat.

    And really, that'll just drive the people to cheaper, yet equally unhealthy, alternatives. Instead of Cheetos they go with the generic equivalent, and pay the same cost as they were before. Or maybe they'll just get the same lazy, unhealthy foods they were before, and take the remainder out of their budget for vegetables and fruits.

    The problem is that people are a bunch of lazy fucks who can't be arsed to cook. I don't see taxes changing that.

    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Before I see a sin tax on games, I want to see a sin tax on fast food. What I'd enjoy even more is to see people MTFU and shut their kids video games off every so often.

    Scrublet on
    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.

    PSN: TheScrublet
  • Options
    ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    But to tax a form of entertainment that has no demonsterable negative health effect? There are to many variables that feed into child obiesity, poor academic performance, etc. If World of Warcraft caused bone cancer or Dance Dance Revolution was responsible for driving fatalities then they would have a case.

    They are doing this becaus they can, not because it has anything to do with their concerns for the welfare of America's youth.

    Zahaladeen on
  • Options
    KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    This isn't a tax, it's an investment in our children's future. Taxes are only for bad things, like Nuclear warheads and gas chambers.
    Access to fresh and quality produce seems to be increasingly difficult for low income earners to even locate, let alone afford. Maybe throw some junk food tax revenue in that direction? HFCS shows just how effective that can be in spurring ubiquitous consumption!

    Which is why I'm trying to get proposition 94 on my state ballot for the upcoming June election. If passed, the state department agents of Vegetables and Enlightened Grains and Nutrition (VEGAN) will be deployed to our inner cities distributing broccoli and brussel sprouts to gang members, since those people are too dumb to buy fresh vegetables.

    KevinNash on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Zahaladeen wrote: »
    There are so many layers of rubbish here it's difficult to even pierce the top level of strata, but since gaming doesn't have a legit, or politically viable lobby to counteract this type of gibberish then gaming will keep taking the hits.
    Actually, that isn't really true come the end of March.

    Quid on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.

    Prices definitely incent behavior, but I think it's fair to assume that they will incent it along the path of least resistance. What's easier, buying a cheaper version of the same shit you always buy, or switching up your lifestyle?

    To the extent that the cigarette taxes work - and I think it's a very small extent - it's based on the fact that it's a fucking huge tax, larger than the price difference between most competing brands. I mean, we're talking $2-3 a pack on a $5 pack of cigarettes.

    Like I said, if the tax is ginormous - like a 30% tax on junk food and teevees - I can see it having a disincentive effect. Otherwise, it'll just promote cheaper brands.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Obesity is prevalent amongst poor families because cheap food is usually loaded with empty calories and fat. Attacking Video Games is just a cheap way to score political points because nobody has any idea of how to make healthful food cheaper.

    TheMarshal on
  • Options
    KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.

    Prices definitely incent behavior, but I think it's fair to assume that they will incent it along the path of least resistance. What's easier, buying a cheaper version of the same shit you always buy, or switching up your lifestyle?

    To the extent that the cigarette taxes work - and I think it's a very small extent - it's based on the fact that it's a fucking huge tax, larger than the price difference between most competing brands. I mean, we're talking $2-3 a pack on a $5 pack of cigarettes.

    Like I said, if the tax is ginormous - like a 30% tax on junk food and teevees - I can see it having a disincentive effect. Otherwise, it'll just promote cheaper brands.

    Ginormous taxes lead to black markets. Then the state collects nothing and you get crime sprouting up the poorest areas who cannot afford to pay the regressive taxes.

    I also think excessive taxation on addictive substances is particularly vicious. The self-righteous people who fought tooth and nail to get the tobacco companies to admit it's an addictive substance are the same people advocating massive taxation on it. Since addicts will pretty much do whatever it takes to get high, making them fork over more money to get their fix is at best stupid and at worst evil.

    KevinNash on
  • Options
    MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Do you think that tobacco taxes haven't had an effect on smoking rates? Or that they've been circumvented by black markets? Maybe, I guess, though for the people I know cost seems to be a factor both in why they want to quit or didn't start in the first place.

    MrMister on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.
    Prices definitely incent behavior, but I think it's fair to assume that they will incent it along the path of least resistance. What's easier, buying a cheaper version of the same shit you always buy, or switching up your lifestyle?

    To the extent that the cigarette taxes work - and I think it's a very small extent - it's based on the fact that it's a fucking huge tax, larger than the price difference between most competing brands. I mean, we're talking $2-3 a pack on a $5 pack of cigarettes.

    Like I said, if the tax is ginormous - like a 30% tax on junk food and teevees - I can see it having a disincentive effect. Otherwise, it'll just promote cheaper brands.
    Actually, taxing cigarettes generally drives down consumption among teenagers. Which is a good thing, IMO.

    And as for the "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods," I think my high-fructose corn syrup tax would be a great way to focus that particular tax. Even if they replaced it with sugars from other sources, it would still be an improvement.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    And as for the "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods," I think my high-fructose corn syrup tax would be a great way to focus that particular tax. Even if they replaced it with sugars from other sources...
    Like sugar!

    Quid on
  • Options
    KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thinatos wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.
    Prices definitely incent behavior, but I think it's fair to assume that they will incent it along the path of least resistance. What's easier, buying a cheaper version of the same shit you always buy, or switching up your lifestyle?

    To the extent that the cigarette taxes work - and I think it's a very small extent - it's based on the fact that it's a fucking huge tax, larger than the price difference between most competing brands. I mean, we're talking $2-3 a pack on a $5 pack of cigarettes.

    Like I said, if the tax is ginormous - like a 30% tax on junk food and teevees - I can see it having a disincentive effect. Otherwise, it'll just promote cheaper brands.
    Actually, taxing cigarettes generally drives down consumption among teenagers. Which is a good thing, IMO.

    It's fine for discouraging those to start, but I have a problem when they tax people who have been smoking for 10-20 years because they are already hooked. They should tax based on age or something (since you already have to show ID to buy them anyway).
    And as for the "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods," I think my high-fructose corn syrup tax would be a great way to focus that particular tax. Even if they replaced it with sugars from other sources, it would still be an improvement.

    Or we could just stop subsidizing corn and start trading with Cuba so they put real sugar back in our Coke. HFCS sucks ass.

    KevinNash on
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So when do we get around to sin-taxing books, too?

    Since fat little Johnny's too busy reading Harry Potter to go running around the middle of the New Mexico desert all day.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    And as for the "difficult to tax just unhealthy foods," I think my high-fructose corn syrup tax would be a great way to focus that particular tax. Even if they replaced it with sugars from other sources, it would still be an improvement.
    Or we could just stop subsidizing corn and start trading with Cuba so they put real sugar back in our Coke. HFCS sucks ass.
    We wouldn't even need to start trading with Cuba, just drop the sugar tariffs, and South America would more than fill our needs.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Has there even been any plus side to this tax mentioned? I mean it just seems like a red scare to pass the buck (yeah, I realize that's a botched catch phrase) to something else, but lets say they add a 20% tax on video games. If I buy like ten games a year can I write off most of my gym membership?

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • Options
    ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    Zahaladeen wrote: »
    There are so many layers of rubbish here it's difficult to even pierce the top level of strata, but since gaming doesn't have a legit, or politically viable lobby to counteract this type of gibberish then gaming will keep taking the hits.
    Actually, that isn't really true come the end of March.

    Thank you sir, for this link. Very interesting.

    Zahaladeen on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    One telling aspect about the diets of poor fat people is that they are often malnourished as well as overnourished. This is because all those calories they consume come with no vitamins or minerals.

    One question that should be asked is why games and not television, movies, or books.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Irond Will wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    There have been some proposals to tax "convenience food" or whatever your preferred term is, and maybe use the money to subsidize healthy foods. As much as people piss and moan about anything getting in the way of their slovenly habits, this really is a public health issue. If there were some disease that killed as many people as does obesity, people would be wearing around lapel pins and donating money and so forth.

    A big problem is the fact that there's no easy divide between healthy and unhealthy foods. What about milk? Cheese? White bread? Hamburger meat? That shit will kill you just as fast as Sugar Lard Puffs, if eaten in the quantities these bloated little munchkins are accustomed to. So sure, you stave off some empty sugar calories and replace them with some different empty carbs and maybe a brick of fat.

    And really, that'll just drive the people to cheaper, yet equally unhealthy, alternatives. Instead of Cheetos they go with the generic equivalent, and pay the same cost as they were before. Or maybe they'll just get the same lazy, unhealthy foods they were before, and take the remainder out of their budget for vegetables and fruits.

    The problem is that people are a bunch of lazy fucks who can't be arsed to cook. I don't see taxes changing that.

    Prices incent behavior. Just making people take the time to cook isn't really going to do anything, since Hamburger Helper is probably the easiest thing to cook. And granted that there are massive grey areas there in terms of "healthy" or "unhealthy" foods. Still, it's possible to draw some broad lines.

    Yeah, it is possible to draw some broad lines. We can start with taxing HFCS and trans fats, for example.

    Also, taxes incent not only consumer behavior, but producer behavior too. A consumer tax on HFCS for example will not only encourage people to buy products with real sugars in them, it will also encourage producers to use real sugar so people actually buy their (now cheaper) shit.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    MrMister wrote: »
    Do you think that tobacco taxes haven't had an effect on smoking rates? Or that they've been circumvented by black markets? Maybe, I guess, though for the people I know cost seems to be a factor both in why they want to quit or didn't start in the first place.

    Cigarettes are a shitty analogy in general, because they are actively addictive instead of just desirable, but it wasn't my analogy to begin with. I was only bringing the cig taxes up as an illustration of how use taxes see their revenue go all over the damned place, and not just towards addressing the relevant issue. Sin taxes are generally just a way to squeeze extra revenue out of a particular demographic the public deems sufficiently demonizable.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    It's fine for discouraging those to start, but I have a problem when they tax people who have been smoking for 10-20 years because they are already hooked.

    Why? Are people who are already hooked somehow more entitled to having the thing available for cheap?

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    It's fine for discouraging those to start, but I have a problem when they tax people who have been smoking for 10-20 years because they are already hooked.

    Why? Are people who are already hooked somehow more entitled to having the thing available for cheap?

    If addiction is a disease, I consider excessive taxation on it reprehensible, particularly a regressive tax which hits the poorest people hardest.

    KevinNash on
  • Options
    unknownsome1unknownsome1 Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I believe the real reason for obesity is primarily lack of exercise. Poor diet is a contributer but would not be so bad if a person who has a poor diet did sit-ups and ran every day. Instead of promoting a tax on video games and being a bunch of self-righteous pricks, maybe the Sierra Club should encourage mandatory gym classes for all public schools in New Mexico (if all NM public schools don't already) for all non-handicapped students.

    unknownsome1 on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    I believe the real reason for obesity is primarily lack of exercise. Poor diet is a contributer but would not be so bad if a person who has a poor diet did sit-ups and ran every day.

    Neither one is the principal reason - they go hand in hand. Someone who exercises a bunch is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how much he eats. Someone who eats really well is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how sedentary he is.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I believe the real reason for obesity is primarily lack of exercise. Poor diet is a contributer but would not be so bad if a person who has a poor diet did sit-ups and ran every day.

    Neither one is the principal reason - they go hand in hand. Someone who exercises a bunch is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how much he eats. Someone who eats really well is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how sedentary he is.

    There's also the fact that poor people need to eat a lot of food just to consume the minimum number of nutrients because the food they can afford is all nutrient-free calories.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I believe the real reason for obesity is primarily lack of exercise. Poor diet is a contributer but would not be so bad if a person who has a poor diet did sit-ups and ran every day.

    Neither one is the principal reason - they go hand in hand. Someone who exercises a bunch is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how much he eats. Someone who eats really well is unlikely to be obese, regardless of how sedentary he is.

    Actually, no.

    Even if you exercise, if you don't watch what you eat, it will do jack. This is the primary reason people who exercise lose motivation after a while; they jog their ass off and sweat at the gym regularly, but because they still eat a lot (even if it's good, healthy stuff), they can't lose weight. Then they brand themselves "big-boned" or something and accept their status quo.

    However, even if you don't exercise you can still lose weight, or be slim or skinny. Now, you won't be healthy and strong, but as far as weight goes, what and how much of it you eat has a far, far larger impact on your weight than whether you exercise or not. What exercise primarily does is determine the composition of your weight: whether the weight you gain will be fat or muscle, or the weight you lose will be far or muscle.

    So you're right in a sense that exercise and diet go hand in hand, but your explanation is wrong.

    ege02 on
Sign In or Register to comment.