25 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Busygirlcheck out this woman. she's 42yo, 600lb, and aiming at 1000lb in two years. men send her protein shakes and pay a subscription to watch her eat junk food on her website. she gave birth by Caesarian while weighing 532lb - you'd think they would have done lipo, since they had to make the incision anyway.
Admit it.
You're a chubby chaser, right?
No shame 😀
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13355
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by BlackampFacepalms 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
check out this woman. she's 42yo, 600lb, and aiming at 1000lb in two years. men send her protein shakes and pay a subscription to watch her eat junk food on her website. she gave birth by Caesarian while weighing 532lb - you'd think they would have done lipo, since they had to make the incision anyway.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13355
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by BlackampShe tries to eat 12,000 calories a day?
check out this woman. she's 42yo, 600lb, and aiming at 1000lb in two years. men send her protein shakes and pay a subscription to watch her eat junk food on her website. she gave birth by Caesarian while weighing 532lb - you'd think they would have done lipo, since they had to make the incision anyway.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13355
That could feed a whole village.
She could feed a whole village, for a month.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by MimorMe likey (on several levels).
You're right on some level. Current US agribusiness practices and policies make it easier for people to become overweight. The abundance and cheapness of calorie-dense, nutrient-light "food" is a big problem And I understand that habits, especially ones developed in childhood are hard to overcome. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's as simple t ...[text shortened]... e desires or grow the hell up and do what's best for our bodies and our families.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by cadwahBecause the science does not support this conclusion. If it was really this easy, why would ~50% of people be overweight? The science shows that eating less and exercising more is a strong way to lose weight over the short term, which is then counteracted by powerful biological mechanisms which a) increase appetite so that more food is taken in, and b) reduce metabolism so that exercising does not produce as much calorie usage.
Eat less, Exercise more.
I see no part of the above for which you are not in complete control.
Take responsibility for your own actions.
The scientific evidence is out there, it's just been widely ignored. Try taking a look at 'Big Fat Lies' by Glenn Gaesser or 'Health at Every Size' by Linda Bacon. You'll find that essentially any study not funded by the food, 'nutrition' or weight-loss industries reports the same results: more exercise/eating lower calories produces short-term results which lead to long-term re-stabilisation, and in many cases a long-term increase in mass beyond one's original weight.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19047
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by kyngj🙄
Because the science does not support this conclusion. If it was really this easy, why would ~50% of people be overweight? The science shows that eating less and exercising more is a strong way to lose weight over the short term, which is then counteracted by powerful biological mechanisms which a) increase appetite so that more food is taken in, and b) reduce ...[text shortened]... on, and in many cases a long-term increase in mass beyond one's original weight.
25 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateNot at all. I simply meant to point out that the underpinnings of this crisis do not lie solely with the individual. The advent of food science (processing for increased shelf life) and food subsidies (creation of high-fructose corn syrup amongst other things) have created economic, social and biological conditions that make it very difficult to consume food that is healthful.
Really? Are we really going to blame our own shortcomings upon others now? We all have weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but, it is unacceptable to blame them on others. It is up to the individual to live their own life.
If you're fat and fine with it then live your life. If you're not happy do something about it. Life's far to short to squander it on being miserable.
When a McDonald's happy meal costs almost the same as a head of broccoli, it's not surprising that the family chooses more bang for the caloric buck, and more engineered flavours that are designed to target the tastebuds in ways that the broccoli cannot hope to compete with. What they don't realise is that all the added fructose to that meal is essentially unrecognised by the body and does not get metabolised effectively; that almost everything in that meal is made from corn, and that this is because corn is insanely cheap to produce and purchase.
Many families simply cannot afford to cook from scratch because pre-prepared (high in sodium, sugar, fat and preservatives) are actually CHEAPER than the real meals they imitate. If you had 3 kids and were faced with that choice every day, what would you do? You'd buy the best you could afford, right? Now what if you make a paltry living? You'd by the processed food because that's what you can afford?
So no, I'm not blaming the big-bad corporations and letting the individual go scot-free, I'm just trying to open your eyes to the possibility that there is a bit more to it than a lack of self-control.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by kyngjIt has nothing to do with "cheaper" it has to do with, what's easier and taste better.
Not at all. I simply meant to point out that the underpinnings of this crisis do not lie solely with the individual. The advent of food science (processing for increased shelf life) and food subsidies (creation of high-fructose corn syrup amongst other things) have created economic, social and biological conditions that make it very difficult to consume food t ...[text shortened]... your eyes to the possibility that there is a bit more to it than a lack of self-control.
You can go to the store and get a head of celery for $1.50, a bag of carrots for $1.50 and an apple for $.50. That's cheaper than a meal at McDonalds.
Or better yet, go to the store and buy a packet of carrot seeds for $1.00. Plant them and in a month, you can have a nice new crop of great tasting veggies that last all summer long!
25 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by kyngjI'm afraid you're not presenting a valid argument. For example, your premise that an individual of very modest means has no choice but to consume high calorie meals is untrue. They have choices, perhaps not good ones, but, choices nonetheless.
Not at all. I simply meant to point out that the underpinnings of this crisis do not lie solely with the individual. The advent of food science (processing for increased shelf life) and food subsidies (creation of high-fructose corn syrup amongst other things) have created economic, social and biological conditions that make it very difficult to consume food t your eyes to the possibility that there is a bit more to it than a lack of self-control.
I am willing to accept that I may err on the side of advocating too much personal and corporate freedom. However, unless a corporation is directly violating the rights and freedoms of individuals or groups I feel there activities should be as unrestricted as possible. Just as people are mini-corporations unto themselves, corporations should be allowed similar rights and freedoms as compared to the individual.
What I mean by this is that unless a corporation is pulling people off the street and pumping them full of happy meals or similarly forcing you to consume their products, you have little to complain about. If they violate your personal freedoms, pursuit of happiness, et al... then they can be held accountable.
Corporations are only in business because people buy the products and services they offer. People know that certain products are bad for them (alcohol, drugs, loose women, guns, etc..). I believe corporations must make people aware of any risks associate with their products, but, the individual carries the final responsibility to consume said products in a responsible fashion.
If I go out and get extremely intoxicated, hop in my vehicle and kill a pedestrian who should be held responsible the manufacturer of the car or the distillery of fine single malt Scotch? By your argument surely one of these corporations is responsible for my exceedingly poor judgement and the devestating consequences of my actions.
Edit: 25lb bag of Uncle Ben's rice = $60USD. Throw in some chicken broth, corn, green onion, a peice of chicken, a dash of budweiser and you've got food for a week. If it wasn't for Uncle Bens and Ramen noodles I'd have been screwed in college.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by mlpriora 50-lb bag of flour is $12.
It has nothing to do with "cheaper" it has to do with, what's easier and taste better.
You can go to the store and get a head of celery for $1.50, a bag of carrots for $1.50 and an apple for $.50. That's cheaper than a meal at McDonalds.
Or better yet, go to the store and buy a packet of carrot seeds for $1.00. Plant them and in a month, you can have a nice new crop of great tasting veggies that last all summer long!
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisDeliberately so. Plus I imagine a rib roast from a fatty would be quite tasty slowly cooked on a spit over an open pit BBQ.
The thread title is misleading. It implies someone was eating fat people.
The title should be, "Fat People Eating."
Plonker
Ball snorkler.