The biggest problem with belittling fat people is that it doesn't help anything at all.
You're not fat because you're lazy and in most cases not even because you eat too much. Society says "just exercise and eat healthy* and you'll be fine", and that does. not. work. for a great number of fat people, and the most frustrating thing is that both of those things are true, exercise works, but the average guy laughing at a fat joke puts in no more effort into keeping his current weight than the average fat guy hes laughing at, see asterisks below about eating healthy.
Low carb ended a 16 year long weight struggle for me, but it's at best regarded as a fringe ideology. Sure I'll never have someone snicker at me behind my back if I'm eating now, because since I'm not obese anymore naturally I must no longer be lazy right? It's total bullshit.
*what society considers to be healthy eating is completely fucking wrong, making the problem worse
That's pretty amazing that one disorder that is preventable for most people can have that much of an effect on our economy. Should we hold people with preventable diabetes accountable for some type of a tax hike?
Yea maybe when we stop handing what amounts to dump trucks full of $100 bills each week to the people that shit poison into every product on super market shelves, after that's done I might start listening to appeals to personal responsibility re:taxes/fatties
Edit: like 50 edits for clarification
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
The biggest problem with belittling fat people is that it doesn't help anything at all.
You're not fat because you're lazy and in most cases not even because you eat too much. Society says "just exercise and eat healthy* and you'll be fine", and that does. not. work. for a great number of fat people, and the most frustrating thing is that both of those things are true, exercise works, but the average guy laughing at a fat joke puts in no more effort into keeping his current weight than the average fat guy hes laughing at, see asterisks below about eating healthy.
Low carb ended a 16 year long weight struggle for me, but it's at best regarded as a fringe ideology. Sure I'll never have someone snicker at me behind my back if I'm eating now, because since I'm not obese anymore naturally I must no longer be lazy right? It's total bullshit.
*what society considers to be healthy eating is completely fucking wrong, making the problem worse
That's pretty amazing that one disorder that is preventable for most people can have that much of an effect on our economy. Should we hold people with preventable diabetes accountable for some type of a tax hike?
Yea maybe when we stop handing what amounts to dump trucks full of $100 bills each week to the people that shit poison into every product on super market shelves, after that's done I might start listening to appeals to personal responsibility re:taxes/fatties
Edit: like 50 edits for clarification
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
Depends on how you define "low carb". The studies I've seen call anything under 200-250g a day LC, and that is far, far above what I would consider a low carb diet. 100g daily is more like it. On top of that, any study that depends on people self-reporting what they eat is intrinsically flawed.
All know is, low carb worked for me; my blood sugar is under control (I was pre-diabetic) AND my cholesterol went down more than 50 points on a VAP test. On top of that, I've lost 30 pounds of fat and maintained my muscle mass, all in 6 months.
wallaka on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The problem with comparing it to drugs is that you can stop using drugs all at once, someone who is overweight can't stop eating all at once without dying.
True, but I would wager that the overwhelming majority of chronic over-eaters and morbidly obese didn't get that way by glandular disorder, and if they did there's not much dietary help for them anyway.
People who are on drugs can still use medicines that aren't narcotics, and people that are morbidly obese can eat without eating poorly.
The problem with comparing it to drugs is that you can stop using drugs all at once, someone who is overweight can't stop eating all at once without dying.
True, but I would wager that the overwhelming majority of chronic over-eaters and morbidly obese didn't get that way by glandular disorder, and if they did there's not much dietary help for them anyway.
People who are on drugs can still use medicines that aren't narcotics, and people that are morbidly obese can eat without eating poorly.
The biggest problem with belittling fat people is that it doesn't help anything at all.
You're not fat because you're lazy and in most cases not even because you eat too much. Society says "just exercise and eat healthy* and you'll be fine", and that does. not. work. for a great number of fat people, and the most frustrating thing is that both of those things are true, exercise works, but the average guy laughing at a fat joke puts in no more effort into keeping his current weight than the average fat guy hes laughing at, see asterisks below about eating healthy.
Low carb ended a 16 year long weight struggle for me, but it's at best regarded as a fringe ideology. Sure I'll never have someone snicker at me behind my back if I'm eating now, because since I'm not obese anymore naturally I must no longer be lazy right? It's total bullshit.
*what society considers to be healthy eating is completely fucking wrong, making the problem worse
That's pretty amazing that one disorder that is preventable for most people can have that much of an effect on our economy. Should we hold people with preventable diabetes accountable for some type of a tax hike?
Yea maybe when we stop handing what amounts to dump trucks full of $100 bills each week to the people that shit poison into every product on super market shelves, after that's done I might start listening to appeals to personal responsibility re:taxes/fatties
Edit: like 50 edits for clarification
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
Depends on how you define "low carb". The studies I've seen call anything under 200-250g a day LC, and that is far, far above what I would consider a low carb diet. 100g daily is more like it. On top of that, any study that depends on people self-reporting what they eat is intrinsically flawed.
All know is, low carb worked for me; my blood sugar is under control (I was pre-diabetic) AND my cholesterol went down more than 50 points on a VAP test. On top of that, I've lost 30 pounds of fat and maintained my muscle mass, all in 6 months.
My problems are low body awareness and high impulsiveness, so I have a bad habit of eating way too much at meal times and going for sweets. As such, regimenting meals and getting a summer job outside the house (read: away from food sources) was pretty much what I needed (I'd held my weight before going to college, so it couldn't have been switching back from the school caf, and my intake was kind of controlled by my mother outside of the breakfast which I changed from bagels to eggs).
One principal I've noticed is that the best diet is the diet that eliminates a weakness. I tend to be a sucker for sweets but inherited my mom's taste for fish and poultry, so I had to go low carb. People who eat too muck fried food tend to thrive on low fat diets. Either way, people are likely to chose the worst diet if going for easiness.
The main study I've seen was Atkins v. standard, although the NYT science section noted that Taubes' diet hasn't distinguished itself in the review of his latest book.
agentk13 on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The problem with comparing it to drugs is that you can stop using drugs all at once, someone who is overweight can't stop eating all at once without dying.
True, but I would wager that the overwhelming majority of chronic over-eaters and morbidly obese didn't get that way by glandular disorder, and if they did there's not much dietary help for them anyway.
People who are on drugs can still use medicines that aren't narcotics, and people that are morbidly obese can eat without eating poorly.
So why are you not just eating like you should?
I haven't really gained weight since I stopped playing ball in college.
But I played O-line, and haven't really been able to shuck they weight I intentionally gained back then. I don't really eat all that poorly.
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
Edited: Guess I was being reactionary, as always, and should have more closely examined your posts.
I'm skeptical of low carb diets being the same effectiveness as regular diets, unless as mentioned last page, they're going for like 200 carbs instead of around 50.
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
Edited: Guess I was being reactionary, as always, and should have more closely examined your posts.
I'm skeptical of low carb diets being the same effectiveness as regular diets, unless as mentioned last page, they're going for like 200 carbs instead of around 50.
I think the Atkins comparison showed the only difference was that Atkins subjects kept it off a little better. For newer diets, the results vary from large but insignificant difference to rounding error, with the former probably being explainable by the fact that nobody eats crackling (pure fat) but everybody eats mashed potatoes and candy (pure carbs), so that only one diet has an in-built block on total excess in allowed categories.
He's telling us he doesnt eat 40 carbs a week, and 500 calories a day, but is being monitored by a doctor, but was trying to push it off as normal. I think we can drop all nutrition talk with him because he won't hear it. I mean he must have a magical corn plant that doesn't have carbs if he ate steak and corn for dinner. Not to mention you are getting countable carbohydrates from more then 2-4 oz of meat.
DiannaoChong on
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
He's telling us he doesnt eat 40 carbs a week, and 500 calories a day, but is being monitored by a doctor, but was trying to push it off as normal. I think we can drop all nutrition talk with him because he won't hear it. I mean he must have a magical corn plant that doesn't have carbs if he ate steak and corn for dinner. Not to mention you are getting countable carbohydrates from more then 2-4 oz of meat.
Where did I say that was normal? I said it could be dangerous and I'm doing it for a very brief time.
And a small ear of corn has 60-70 Calories. I ate less than half, and it's the only carbs I've had this week.
How about everyone get off of Ross's balls for 2 seconds? Can any of you read?
What he's doing is not dangerous in the long term and, in fact, he mentioned that he upped his weekly calorie intake after his latest doctor visit. I realize you all want to be "right" but I believe it's time to move on.
So...diabetes is a terrible thing and we should probably try and prevent it, huh?
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Maybe give a subsidy for healthy food similar to food stamps but, you're eligible no matter your income? That would probably help. Though people would probably buy healthy food and then buy more unhealthy food with their own money.
Unless it was a "give a subsidy for healthy food and then tax 'pre-packaged' food to the point where you're buying less than with what the subsidy gives you extra for." Though I'd still like to be able to buy prepared foods at the grocery store because a lemon chicken made at Wegmans is still better than some chicken nuggets from the frozen food section.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Maybe give a subsidy for healthy food similar to food stamps but, you're eligible no matter your income? That would probably help. Though people would probably buy healthy food and then buy more unhealthy food with their own money.
Unless it was a "give a subsidy for healthy food and then tax 'pre-packaged' food to the point where you're buying less than with what the subsidy gives you extra for." Though I'd still like to be able to buy prepared foods at the grocery store because a lemon chicken made at Wegmans is still better than some chicken nuggets from the frozen food section.
I'd personally like to see food stamp programs (or whatever your state uses) direct spending options to natural and healthy foods.
Of course, I felt stronger about this after a woman in front of me at Walgreens once used food stamps to buy $12 worth of Twizzlers and Big Red soda.
I wasn't sure how food stamps work, but there useable on literally anything food related right? (I think I hear stories about spending them on cigarettes and such, but whatever). I think maybe we could do more with direction of WIC, where it allows towards certain items, maybe we can get the money going towards the healthier end.
Although there's reports showing that food stamps are getting used more often to buy nicer products, like at a Whole Foods and such.
My brother and sister were on WIC for a while and it was awesome for them, there was no way they could afford fresh/canned fruit otherwise, or probably milk.
Subsidizing healthy food will never ever work, you'll need some formula to do it and companies will just game it. Food subsidies in general have always been a gigantic failure in the United States and the best thing we can do it just end all of them.
wasn't sure how food stamps work, but there useable on literally anything food related right? (I think I hear stories about spending them on cigarettes and such, but whatever). I think maybe we could do more with direction of WIC, where it allows towards certain items, maybe we can get the money going towards the healthier end.
Although there's reports showing that food stamps are getting used more often to buy nicer products, like at a Whole Foods and such.
My brother and sister were on WIC for a while and it was awesome for them, there was no way they could afford fresh/canned fruit otherwise, or probably milk.
I agree. It would be nice if there were some sort of education that came with the food stamps too, so people might make better decisions. Most people I see with food stamps get frozen pizzas and microwave dinners instead of whole, healthy foods.
Of course, then we'd have to get them to actually cook, and far too many people now don't or can't.
Posts
That may be because low carb doesn't perform any better when compared to other diets.
Depends on how you define "low carb". The studies I've seen call anything under 200-250g a day LC, and that is far, far above what I would consider a low carb diet. 100g daily is more like it. On top of that, any study that depends on people self-reporting what they eat is intrinsically flawed.
All know is, low carb worked for me; my blood sugar is under control (I was pre-diabetic) AND my cholesterol went down more than 50 points on a VAP test. On top of that, I've lost 30 pounds of fat and maintained my muscle mass, all in 6 months.
True, but I would wager that the overwhelming majority of chronic over-eaters and morbidly obese didn't get that way by glandular disorder, and if they did there's not much dietary help for them anyway.
People who are on drugs can still use medicines that aren't narcotics, and people that are morbidly obese can eat without eating poorly.
So why are you not just eating like you should?
My problems are low body awareness and high impulsiveness, so I have a bad habit of eating way too much at meal times and going for sweets. As such, regimenting meals and getting a summer job outside the house (read: away from food sources) was pretty much what I needed (I'd held my weight before going to college, so it couldn't have been switching back from the school caf, and my intake was kind of controlled by my mother outside of the breakfast which I changed from bagels to eggs).
One principal I've noticed is that the best diet is the diet that eliminates a weakness. I tend to be a sucker for sweets but inherited my mom's taste for fish and poultry, so I had to go low carb. People who eat too muck fried food tend to thrive on low fat diets. Either way, people are likely to chose the worst diet if going for easiness.
The main study I've seen was Atkins v. standard, although the NYT science section noted that Taubes' diet hasn't distinguished itself in the review of his latest book.
I haven't really gained weight since I stopped playing ball in college.
But I played O-line, and haven't really been able to shuck they weight I intentionally gained back then. I don't really eat all that poorly.
Edited: Guess I was being reactionary, as always, and should have more closely examined your posts.
I'm skeptical of low carb diets being the same effectiveness as regular diets, unless as mentioned last page, they're going for like 200 carbs instead of around 50.
I think the Atkins comparison showed the only difference was that Atkins subjects kept it off a little better. For newer diets, the results vary from large but insignificant difference to rounding error, with the former probably being explainable by the fact that nobody eats crackling (pure fat) but everybody eats mashed potatoes and candy (pure carbs), so that only one diet has an in-built block on total excess in allowed categories.
Where did I say that was normal? I said it could be dangerous and I'm doing it for a very brief time.
And a small ear of corn has 60-70 Calories. I ate less than half, and it's the only carbs I've had this week.
What he's doing is not dangerous in the long term and, in fact, he mentioned that he upped his weekly calorie intake after his latest doctor visit. I realize you all want to be "right" but I believe it's time to move on.
So...diabetes is a terrible thing and we should probably try and prevent it, huh?
Unless it was a "give a subsidy for healthy food and then tax 'pre-packaged' food to the point where you're buying less than with what the subsidy gives you extra for." Though I'd still like to be able to buy prepared foods at the grocery store because a lemon chicken made at Wegmans is still better than some chicken nuggets from the frozen food section.
I'd personally like to see food stamp programs (or whatever your state uses) direct spending options to natural and healthy foods.
Of course, I felt stronger about this after a woman in front of me at Walgreens once used food stamps to buy $12 worth of Twizzlers and Big Red soda.
Although there's reports showing that food stamps are getting used more often to buy nicer products, like at a Whole Foods and such.
My brother and sister were on WIC for a while and it was awesome for them, there was no way they could afford fresh/canned fruit otherwise, or probably milk.
I agree. It would be nice if there were some sort of education that came with the food stamps too, so people might make better decisions. Most people I see with food stamps get frozen pizzas and microwave dinners instead of whole, healthy foods.
Of course, then we'd have to get them to actually cook, and far too many people now don't or can't.