Remember that meta-analysis study that came out about a month or so ago which purported to show that overweight people live longer than thin people, and remember hearing the groans of joy from diabetic, foot-chopped fatties with zero romantic prospects jumping two centimeters into the air in victory celebration? Remember thinking, “Hm, this study totally contradicts everything I see with my two lying eyes. Something smells fishy, and it isn’t just smegma trapped in some fatty’s stomach folds.”
Well, the skeptics and fat antagonizers, like yours truly, were right to doubt the claims of that study.
It turns out the methodology of the prior study was terrible, and they included skinny people dying of cancer and AIDS and so on in the calculations. As stated in the linked article, “These people weren’t dying because they were slim; they were slim because they were dying.”
I wonder what Fat Apologist of the Blogosphere thinks of this recent correction?
Moral of the story: If you are a repellent fatty, don’t rely on meta-analysis studies conducted by “researchers” with an axe to grind to save you from a life of unbearable chronic pain, horrible BO, involuntary celibacy, jeers, and malfunctioning reach-around wiping implements. Instead, rely on the mirror. And… say it together now… push away from the buffet.
You don’t need studies, fatties. You need willpower. And a healthy dose of shame and realistic self-appraisal. If you think these things are impossible, just recall that a mere fifty years ago most people in America were thin, and they weren’t genetically dissimilar from you. They managed the willpower and shame. So can you.
“You don’t need studies, fatties. You need willpower. And a healthy dose of shame and realistic self-appraisal. If you think these things are impossible, just recall that a mere fifty years ago most people in America were thin, and they weren’t genetically dissimilar from you. They managed the willpower and shame. So can you.”
It wasn’t willpower and shame that differed between then and now.
[Heartiste: Do you deny that the culture has become more shameless?]
It is the height of hypocrisy to criticize the scientific errors of another while wantonly committing some of your own.
[Serious question: Are you fat? Part 2: Are you a fatty fucker?]
LikeLike
I disagree. Shame pretty much went down the drain. Women walking around in the pajamas in Target mid day? Homeless folks who dress better than your average Walmart patron in sweats. For shame.
LikeLike
I assume you’re talking about changes in diet and daily routine?
High glycemic index and increasingly sedentary lifestyle certainly do play a role, but it does seem like people can’t be arsed to get off theirs. Shame is a motivator, a source for the willpower to move around and exercise.
Granted, it seems likely, based on Andy Feinberg and others’ research, that there is some heritable molecular basis for the current obesity epidemic. However, that does not mean people are off the hook for being fat; it doubles your risk of death to be 15 kilos over a BMI of 25. Abdominal fat is even more strongly linked to increased health risk.
LikeLike
“Do you deny that the culture has become more shameless?”
Such would seems hard to be hard to measure, wouldn’t it?
[Heartiste: It’s like fuckability… you know it when you see it.]
In any case, a decline in “willpower” can’t explain the increase in obesity, because that certainly hasn’t changed in the last few decades.
[Willpower declines in lockstep with increasing shamelessness. The one follows the trajectory of the other.]
The change in the availability of food is the most likely culprit.
[Yes, but it’s not dichotomous. Food and attitude work synergistically. At this point, fatties should be aware 6,000 ounce sodas are not doing a thing for their figures.]
LikeLike
Motherfucker is the solution to obesity to not eat so goddamn much and move around more or not? Is there any way you could ever fucking admit that it’s up to an individual to be responsible for their own well-being or is it always going to be the fault of genetics or “too much food”. Too much food? That’s a problem now?
LikeLike
Ah, chicken or the egg fallacy. It’s not like capitalists responded to a demand for more obnoxiously fatty food by supplying more. We were tricked.
Also, people like Alexis de Tocqueville have been criticizing American eating habits since 1835 as “grease-laden” and washed down with ale grog or mead. We’ve always had high octane meals. We just don’t have high-octane activities as a society anymore because people want to watch America’s Next Top Model all day on the couch eating ho-hos and complaining that thin women set an unrealistic standard.
How not to be fat
1. Get off couch
2. Pushups* until it hurts
3. Repeat
*Note: can be substituted for running, chin-ups, sit-ups (lot of ups) and various other non-sedentary activities.
LikeLike
“It’s not like capitalists responded to a demand for more obnoxiously fatty food by supplying more. We were tricked.”
You sure about that? See above.
“How not to be fat
1. Get off couch
2. Pushups* until it hurts
3. Repeat
*Note: can be substituted for running, chin-ups, sit-ups (lot of ups) and various other non-sedentary activities.”
You are wrong.
LikeLike
“You sure about that? See above.”
No, people sell what people will buy. It’s basic economics. If you don’t understand supply side economics, you might be retarded.
“You are wrong.
I take that back, you’re definitely retarded.
Oh look. Another study that blatantly flies in the fact of all we know. It must be right. Couldn’t be that their methodology sucks and that Jogging (slower than 6 mph) for 20 minutes doesn’t actually burn calories. They’re right. It’s society’s fault I’m a fatty. Now respect me, society. I hate to sweat.
(Note that the mag article [not a study] that you linked to cites a thing called “light exercise.” I can’t for the life of me figure out what that means. I can only assume it’s like walking a half mile, doing the dishes, or typing faster than 50 wpm. As for actual exercise, [stuff that gets your heart-rate beyond 60% of your max hr] they had little to say. Whoops)
LikeLike
“No, people sell what people will buy. It’s basic economics.”
Just like tobacco. It’s basic economics.
“Oh look. Another study that blatantly flies in the fact of all we know. It must be right.”
I await your analysis of the flaws in their methodology…
LikeLike
I await your analysis of the flaws in their methodology…
I await you to recognize I already addressed them. See light exercise, or are you blind as well as morbidly obese? Also, I can’t criticize a magazine article’s “methodology.” I had to go by their reading of the study and I did in fact find a problem which you ignored.
Just like tobacco. It’s basic economics.
Also, as you’ve probably never smoked, people smoke because it’s enjoyable. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the only things you can do 20 times a day and still enjoy. As with all things, some people have a problem exercising self discipline (this is a concept you’re no-doubt familiar with).
Why does nobody have self-discipline anymore? Because fat, lazy, pathetic manboobs like you go around every waking hour of your days complaining that every bad decision you make is the fault of some other invisible person on the other side of the country. Cheers.
LikeLike
“I await you to recognize I already addressed them.”
I recognize that you’re innumerate, and that you think that your sample size of 1 represents incontrovertible evidence.
And indeed, if you’ve read the article you will realize that it’s not their claim to prove (that exercise doesn’t lead to weight loss), because their assertion was that there is no evidence for this.
“people smoke because it’s enjoyable.”
You don’t say…
“As a matter of fact, it’s one of the only things you can do 20 times a day and still enjoy. As with all things, some people have a problem exercising self discipline (this is a concept you’re no-doubt familiar with).”
And why is that?
LikeLike
Shame like fear… or depression …or sorrow… or happiness…or remorse … or pride can not be measured with precision like you measure your belly with a tape or the cholesterol in your blood
it does not mean we have no idea if there is more or less
Obviously liberalism has created a society where very few things cause shame, no need to measure it scientifically or accurately
50 years ago people were ashamed of being fat slobs and did not dress with their ass hanging out
We don’t have a shame-o-meter but fuck! can’t you just look around you ???
There is decay everywhere, people have no shame
why do you need a way to measure this “scientifically” ???
Open your fuck’n eyes.
LikeLike
In Quebec, are the cuisine and eating habits very influenced by France, or is it Americanized as in the rest of Canada? French Canadian women are generally pretty hot.
LikeLike
We are very much influenced by American culture with a touch of French.
People here eat a lot of hot-dogs, pizza , potato chips, they go to McDonald’s, drink a LOT of Coke and Pepsi etc etc… but when they have guests over they serve Camembert Cheese and French Wine and act as if they were refined people.
All the popular American tv shows such as House, CSI etc are translated to French.
We have our own tv shows but they are copy cat versions of American tv shows.
We are very Americanized but most French quebecers would deny it. It would take too long to explain why they deny it, but in short; it is part of the culture
LikeLike
hey CH you are pretty shameless about “game” but at the same time lots of willpower to “play”. so your law fails on you!
LikeLike
JayMan, didn’t we discuss this already in another thread? It is most definitely shame that prohibited most people from ballooning, same as today shame is precluding many people from smoking so that eventually it will become an embarrassing thing to smoke. 50 years ago, it used to be an embarrassing thing for women to be fat, now it’s accepted only because society tries to make people with various self-inflicted issues feel normal and accepted.
LikeLike
I don’t like brainwashing in particular, and I think it’s a tactic used both by the left and various other totalitarian fascist governments. However, in this case, I think it’s for people’s own good to be told that fat is ugly and unhealthy. But wait, the fact that we even have to tell people fat is ugly and unhealthy shows the level of stupidity we stooped. Some things should be obvious, if not noticeable with the naked eye.
However, for the left everything is upside down, or it has to fit their agenda. Often, when it’s good for people, they refuse to acknowledge it and term it brainwashing, but when something serves their agenda, no matter how bad it is they will brainwash the citizenry until their indoctrination sinks in, or the end of time, whichever comes first. Dishonesty galore.
LikeLike
@JayMan
Why can’t just buck up and eat the proper diet like you know you should?
Look junk food makes you fat. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I know that there is all sorts of scientific bullshit about this molecule and that but at the end of day if you just follow some common sense and go back to what people did 60 years ago when they were last slim you will get your very easy answer.
Do this diet for three months and you will lose weight:
Lunch at noon: Two chicken thighs, Three Chicken drumsticks, One packet of steamfresh veggies
Dinner at 8 pm: Two chicken thighs, Three Chicken drumsticks, One packet of streamfresh veggies.
Calories Amount: 1500 – 1600, high fat and protein content will make you feel full and not at all hungry.
Do this until thin and then eat a the proper diet of meat and veggies or as the old school common sense saying ‘Meat and Potatoes’ as staples. Have fun with slimmer body. And yes it really is that easy. For the cutting portion of this plan, food equals fuel and plus it’s tastes good.
What different about this diet compared to other diets is that your not starving your body. You feed it all it’s nutrients and nourish while cutting.
Fat people are addicted to sugar and to combat this you have to cut out the crack/food that you are addicted to. You don’t combat alcoholism by simply having three beers instead of a fifth of whiskey.
Of course, you won’t listen. You don’t want to be slim, you love your crack/food and don’t want to give it up.
LikeLike
JayMan can’t take the fact that his chosen lifestyle of sitting “around” the house has made him a lardass.
Hit the (steel reinforced) treadmill JayMan!
LikeLike
Jay, don’t listen to these ignorant people. You are probably right. I see no evidence whatsoever that a culture of prevalent “fat shaming” existed prior to the 20th century.
[Heartiste: What do you think fat lady circus sideshows were?
ps you won’t see a flourishing fat shaming culture when so few people are fat to begin with.]
All the evidence suggests that people rarely got fat before the 20th century for the following reasons:
1. Lack of processed foods
[likely true.]
2. More manual labor and walking
[also likely true.]
3. Many people just didn’t have enough food
[probably true.]
4. People did not live as long and therefore did not live to the older ages where people are most likely to be overweight.
[false. middle age is when people are fattest. you lose weight when you get into older age.]
They used to call gout the rich man’s disease. It tends to come from being overweight. That is evidence that people never evolved to have restraint when it comes to food consumption. This makes sense because for hundreds of thousands of years, too much food was not an option.
[ok, now we know too much food is bad. who doesn’t know that? so why don’t fatsos take the hint and eat less? answer: lack of willpower.]
Where is the evidence that some shameless liberalizing culture is even contributing to weight gain?
[people were shamed out of smoking. the same pressure can be applied for fat shits.]
I see none.
[you don’t see what you don’t want to see.]
If anything, the only reason healthy options exist in modern society is because of the liberals that promote organic food and free range meat and expensive stuff from co ops.
[murray’s ‘coming apart’ provides pretty solid circumstantial evidence that the good habits of the upper classes (and the concomitant shaming of their lessers) is not reaching the ears or guts of the lower classes.]
LikeLike
Why are you wearing that Groucho mask in your pic?
LikeLike
LOL FemX has really hit the wall. She was never any great beauty to begin with, but you’re right, she looks like Groucho with (saggy) tits now.
LikeLike
Idiots…she purposefully posts a bad photo to bait and weed out the butthurt.
LikeLike
Wow, a fat black woman psychic….hey look out everybody, Miss Cleo is back!
LikeLike
“[false. middle age is when people are fattest. you lose weight when you get into older age.]”
Thanks. I did not know that.
“[people were shamed out of smoking. the same pressure can be applied for fat shits.]”
Shamed with a lot of regulation.
[Heartiste: Regulations are codified shaming.]
Like rules that you couldn’t smoke on 10 hour flights or inside anywhere public. I don’t know that shaming people would have led to less smoking without the aid of strict regulations that made it inconvenient and embarrassing to smoke.
[Both work in tandem. What you’re making here is an argument for regulating fatso lifestyles *and* socially shaming them.]
It would be harder to regulate against junk food. Smoking is a one dimensional easily identified activity.
[I dunno. How about this: Massive tax on anything with HFCS over 5 grams per serving. See? Not so hard.]
You can’t smoke in school. That means you can’t light a cigarette and put it in your mouth. That is easy to enforce. A rule that says “you can’t have junk food in school” would be hard to enforce because there is not a single clear definition of what counts as junk food.
[See above. We could also start with the little things like laughing in fat fucks’ faces when they try to sue an airline for not having seats to accommodate their bulk.]
“[murray’s ‘coming apart’ provides pretty solid circumstantial evidence that the good habits of the upper classes (and the concomitant shaming of their lessers) is not reaching the ears or guts of the lower classes.]”
That’s how it should be.
[So certain are you?]
It’s proof that we live in an approximate meritocracy.
[Is a meritocracy the ideal social arrangement?]
In the past, habits of the elite trickled down because the lower classes had plenty of capable and intelligent people who were not born to the right estate, and those people brought in erudite habits because they had a higher class mentality. These days, the intelligent are marrying the intelligent and they have moved into their own gated communities.
[Hope their security systems are up to snuff.]
The lower classes no longer emulate the upper classes because the lower classes are now filled with people who innately lack the intelligence and discipline and other traits of the upper classes.
[They also lack any shame-based direction from their betters. If anything, the upper classes are encouraging the untermenschen in their bad habits.]
If you give them freedom, they will have children they cannot afford out of wedlock.
[The death of religion isn’t helping either. Some (most?) people need those guardrails.]
There is nothing I can do to donate my temperament of prudence to them.
[I find a look of sheer disgust goes a long way to making a fat shit feel really really bad about herself.]
Charles Murray seems to suggest returning to traditional values, which the lower classes should take to.
[What we need is to clean house of our current ruling class.]
I suggest “let them eat cake.”
[Nope. More fat chicks means less fun for me. Libertardian arguments don’t work here. Externalities are a bitch.]
Nice corn syrup filled trans fat laden hostess cake, if that’s what they want.
[I want a society with minority immigrants reduced to 10% total of the native white population. You down wit dat?]
LikeLike
“We could also start with the little things like laughing in fat fucks’ faces when they try to sue an airline for not having seats to accommodate their bulk.]”
We is going to have to mean you and your ilk.
[Heartiste: It takes a man to do a dirty job.]
I may not be the picture of kindness, but I can’t be mean to people because they are fat.
[Women are mean in their own special way to the losers of society.]
“[I find a look of sheer disgust goes a long way to making a fat shit feel really really bad about herself.]”
Whatever happened to flirt with every girl you meet so you can become a flirting machine?
[Did you miss the part about not overextending oneself to the dregs?]
“[The death of religion isn’t helping either. Some (most?) people need those guardrails.]”
I am not interested in making sacrifices so that other people can have what you claim they need. I am the one who cannot buy birth control over the counter because of someone else’s religious issues.
[You sound confused. “Religous issues” have got nothing to do with the lack of OTC birth control. Bitch to the FDA for that.]
“[I want a society with minority immigrants reduced to 10% total of the native white population. You down wit dat?]”
I already live here.
[Did you immigrate, or were you born here?]
I don’t care who else is allowed in.
[So you’d be ok with letting in tens of millions of, say, anti-Indian zealots intent on killing every last one of you?]
My worldview is abstract as it is egocentric.
[The worldview of the blind-sided.]
“[Nope. More fat chicks means less fun for me. Libertardian arguments don’t work here. Externalities are a bitch.]”
Less fun for me too. The presence of beautiful women improves the quality of pretty much everything. If you are sitting in a cafe enjoying a book, imaging how much better the situation would be if the cafe were filled with beautiful women. If you go fishing at a lake, imagine how much better it would be if the women laying on the shore were beautiful. I agree that all women should be as beautiful as possible, but I am not interested in making many sacrifices so that such can occur.
[Who said anything about sacrifices? Most people, including fatsos, have a natural revulsion for fatties. Their disgust would come unbidden and effortlessly were it not for the efforts made by a PC saturated society to tamp down on such displays of normal human emotion for the weak, feeble and defective of the tribe.]
LikeLike
“Who said anything about sacrifices? Most people, including fatsos, have a natural revulsion for fatties. Their disgust would come unbidden and effortlessly were it not for the efforts made by a PC saturated society to tamp down on such displays of normal human emotion for the weak, feeble and defective of the tribe.”
Interesting. Do you really believe that’s the way society should be? (rhetorical)
You do realize that in the past, the behavior of those in the bottom wasn’t so much whipped into shape by the scornful mores of the upper classes, but those of the bottom just died or failed to leave offspring? (not rhetorical)
LikeLike
Just to prove how much shaming works, go into a restaurant with an unopened pack of cigarettes and pack them. Watch the looks. If you’re not uncomfortable with at least the hostility you’ll receive (because you won’t feel the actual shame, knowing you’re not actually going to smoke) then you’re vying with The Terminator for emotionless interaction with society.
Find someone who doesn’t mind being thought of as an asshole and bring them with you to a buffet restaurant. Buy them lunch; it’s a small price to pay for the social experiment you’re about to witness. Have them stare at a fat person shoveling food- and I mean the ones who don’t even taste what they’re putting in their mouths- into their face. Watch the reaction of the person and the rate at which the food is now entering the face after a few minutes.
Shaming works. Just ask all the young black men with their underwear hanging out who walk into a store where I am after feeling the cold disdain of my stare. They all hitch up those pants uncomfortably high after about five seconds.
Shaming works. End of story.
LikeLike
People in the upper classes could give a rat’s ass about the lower classes, and don’t care that they’re getting fat so long as they’re spending money.
Why would they want to educate people at the expense of their businesses?
LikeLike
What scientific error has CH committed?
LikeLike
“I don’t rely on mirrors so I always take Polaroids.” – Cher (Clueless)
LikeLike
Taking a picture of your reflection is still a reflection. (Just some kind-hearted ribbing of your profile pic)
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
O/T Why is it always implied that slaveowner-slave babies were the result of rape? Women love men in power, and women love getting special treatment (that sex with her owner would imply), so why would any slaveowner have had to rape a female slave?
I’d venture that slaveowner-slave rape was no more common than boss-employee rape is today. That is to say, virtually non-existent.
LikeLike
O/T Why is it always implied that the babies of 14 year old girls were the result of rape? 13 year old girls love men in power, and 9 year old girls love getting special treatment (that sex with the puppy store owner would imply), so why would any adult man have to rape a 13 year old girl?
I’d venture that slaveowner-slave rape was no more common than boss-employee rape is today. That is to say, virtually non-existent.
LikeLike
so in your analogy, black female slaves have the same intellectual maturity as 13 year old girls?
LikeLike
No,
you can have all the intellect in the world, but if you don’t have justice, you really don’t have anything, not even yourself.
LikeLike
they had the ability to consent. and they did.
LikeLike
Just like your 11 year old daughter does.
good luck with that.
LikeLike
troll. 11 year olds don’t have the capacity to consent to intercouse.
I am being kind in giving black women the benefit of the doubt that they have slightly more intellectual maturity and are actually capable of making the decision to consent to intercourse. Apparently you guys think thats not the case.
LikeLike
How can people who are supposedly defending black people compare their intelligence to children?
LikeLike
Thwack, small correction. Actually, before justice there has to be truth, then justice. Why? Because justice can be subjective, but not truth. Once the truth is established, then justice can stand upon its shoulders. Justice out of context means nothing but unleashing of one’s frustrations. Only the truth can calm the waters and lead to the correct type of justice.
LikeLike
lol good one Thwack!
LikeLike
I am being kind in giving black women the benefit of the doubt that they have slightly more intellectual maturity and are actually capable of making the decision to consent to intercourse. Apparently you guys think thats not the case.
LikeLike
Here is some white consent for you:
LikeLike
You cast too wide a net.
Evil is evil, and this is/was evil.
It wasn’t/isn’t “white evil”. It was/is simply evil.
∞
LikeLike
Back when we had slavery, we also commonly married girls off at age 13 or 14. So its a bad analogy. While not fully consent, partial consent is possible. Love is no fun if its forced on someone. That said, I agree that sex between master and slave in the American south was probably not all that common and often entailed higher status and privileges for the slave girl involved. No one wants to screw a worm infested field hand. The girl got brought up to the big house and had a better life because of it, as a concubine.
LikeLike
I have asked the same question–to meself mainly–many times. I read an article about Michelle the Hideous and her old time 1/2 cracker relative. it said they feared she had been raped ,by the masters son. Again,maybe she just fucked him. Black men commit rape at a stunning rate. its normal in the ghetto. In haiti they had a baby boom nine months after the quake. people huddling together in times of danger? hell no.its cuz of the mass RAPE the niggers committed. Black men cant stomache the possibility that black women love love love fuckling and sucking white men. Tho some do. And many a DL buck harbors the same desire. hell no! Homey dont play DAT!!! You dig?
LikeLike
When you factor in hypergamy and incentives, the default assumption to slaveowner-slave sex should always be that it was consensual.
Its unpopular because it does not fit the narrative of black victimhood, but then again not much of reality does.
LikeLike
When you factor in hypergamy and incentives, the default assumption to slaveowner-slave sex should always be that it was consensual.
LikeLike
When you factor in hypergamy and incentives, the default assumption to Red Army soldier-German girl sex should always be that it was consensual.
Youtube:
Soviet Soldiers Rape Women by Clive Kandel
LikeLike
I think it would take a special type of human being to have sex with a slave back in the 1800’s. Considering the conditions they were housed in, and worked in it would not be a pleasant undertaking. Not saying it didn’t happen because im sure it did. But I shiver at that thought.
The spoils of war type scenario is a little different. Being away from women for months at a time, being in an adrenalin charged situation, and around men all the time it would be easier. CH has blogged before about womans desire to diversify the gene pool and being more compliant to outsiders. In war zones the idea of consensual sex would be grey area. LOL
LikeLike
“Tend and befriend.”
P.S. I think you are over-simplifying the conditions in which slaves were kept in the US in the 1800s. But in any case, I think your comment is… weird. These human beings were being kept as animals/property, and your primary concern is about their hygiene in the case where you would have sex with them? That’s fvcked up. Get yerself a soul.
∞
LikeLike
“These human beings were being kept as animals/property”
not really, there were plenty of house slaves.
to be honest, I doubt this “caged animal slave” claim. Owners had every incentive to make sure their factors of production were physically cared for, just like a factory owner makes sures his machines don’t get rusted. What good is a slave if he doesn’t get food rest and warmth?
LikeLike
Some guys get so caught up in game they forget females are human, their other half…
They forget we were once a single being; why you think we still got nipples on our chests?
(((shakin my head)))
LikeLike
Rape as used in this context is another example of Lefty definition creep. Its called rape because the state doesn’t legally recognize the consent.
LikeLike
Why do blacks put up with the attitude from the people who are defending them that they NEED defending, implying they are incapable of doing anything for themselves?
LikeLike
When I’m visiting a hospital I’m nearly always amazed by how many of the patients are really, really overweight.
LikeLike
The health risks go way beyond increased cardiac/cancer risks. The thing nobody thinks about is, what if you need to have surgery?
I had to undergo a medically necessary surgery a couple of years ago, and I was lying on the operating table while they took a felt-tip pen to my body to indicate where they were going to cut. As I pulled my hospital johnny up for them (already starting to get loopy from the Valium they give you before the general anesthesia), I heard one of the nurses crow, “Ribs! We have ribs! Actual ribs!”
“Everybody’s got ’em,” I said.
“Well, normally we don’t get the luxury of looking at them,” replied the surgeon. “Do you have any idea how hard it is to dig through a foot of fat in order to get to a vital organ? I have to do that every day.”
LikeLike
I’ve got you beat. A few weeks ago, I watched an overweight man die in the street. Why? Combined, the weight of the EMTs was lower than the weight of the casualty. They couldn’t even get him far enough off the ground to set him on the gurney. Despite the presence of the defibrillator, his condition deteriorated too quickly for the second ambulance’s crew to help. I watched the local news story with my “body positive” cousin. Before she could open her mouth, I made a comment on how the casualty would have lived if the EMTs had been men. When she agreed, I added that it would never happen because hiring only men would be seen as discriminatory to women. Then i asked her if she was going to eat the last pork chop.
Anyone dare to wager whether my cousin has stopped eating seconds, started exercising again and stops lecturing me on liberal talking points? Anyone?
LikeLike
doesn’t take willpower or shame. Just cut out the fucking processed foods.
http://marksdailyapple.com
http://freetheanimal.com
http://leangains.com
Good read here on how the processed food industry is willfully blowing up America:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?hp&_r=4&
LikeLike
When you invent the solution for obesity you may end up a very rich man…
LikeLike
You don’t see a lot of fat coke heads.
LikeLike
I don’t see a lot of coke heads period. At least none that I know to be such.
LikeLike
yea its wierd they go to jail thin and come out and they huge (chicks)
LikeLike
Migrant labor
LikeLike
The model is something like:
External motivation > Internal motivation > Action.
For example: shame > willpower > diet.
Processed food has little relevance to bodyweight. Calorie management and willpower/pressure is everything.
LikeLike
That’s bullshit.
I can’t stand people that say a calorie is a calorie.
Certain calories create a chemical response that makes that person want to eat even more while other calories nourish the body and tell the body to stop eating.
At the end of day, it is calories in/calories out but it’s as dumb as a person asking “why is there so many people in this movie theatre?” and you responding “Because more people entered the theatre door than left”. It’s because the movie is a good film that the theatre is packed.
Just eat clean. If you eat clean that includes veggies, meat, fruit then you won’t get fat. End of story.
Excercise isn’t that great to lose weight because the body self regulates. If you do a greuling workout the body sends hormones to tell you to replenish and also it slows down the metabolism.
Eating healthy keeps your hormones working at a normal level therefore quality AND calorie amount are a must.
It’s sort of like pick up. Game by itself is great, but Game plus Looks plus true social status plus money are much better.
So weight lifting plus cardio plus moderate calorie clean diet is the ultimate holy grail of fitness.
LikeLike
Gosh, you really are a furious little ferret, aren’t you.
At the end of day, it is calories in/calories out but…
But… then you went on to say that an uncontrolled amount of meat, fruit and vegetables won’t make you fat. And that exercise slows down the metabolism. And you tried to rationalise weakness of the mind to chemical responses telling people to eat more?
Thanks for playing!
LikeLike
So if you eat clean, meat without sugary sauces, veggies in the natural state and moderate fresh fruit, you will self regulate and not become fat.
That’s the point I’m trying to make. When you eat clean, your body then has the proper hormone control and will give you the signals to stop eating because you will be full.
When cutting it might be necessary to control calories for some people but you will still be satitied by a clean diet much more so than simply cutting calories.
So eating like crap sends uncontrollable signals to force you eat more crap. It’s a cycle and you should break the cycle.
Show me a fat lion or chimp. Do you see a chimp jogging or does he sit on his ass all day and fling his feces? Animals don’t overeat their natural diet and humans are an animal.
Excercis does slow down your overall metabolism because after a heavy workout you are more lethagic. You body strives for homeostatis. It wants to be a certain weight and trys to funnel you around to keep a stable weight. The way to correct this set point is to eat clean so you have your hormones in check.
In college, I was lean and ran and lifted. I weighed about 160 at 5’11 with 12 percent body fat. Then I went to work and gained a little weight but still lifted and tried to count calories total while eating junk food. It worked for a little while until I just did what all my co workers did and ate junk food. I blew up to 212 at 28 percent body fat. I then wanted to lose weight so I did calorie counting thing, trying to get bang for buck I simply went to boston market and ate a half chicken with veggies every day. To my delight, this 750 calorie meal keep me full for the whole day. This lead to paleo research and I got into that. I now eat chicken every day and eat veggie packets. I weigh 176 with about 16 – 17 percent body fat. I’m never hungry and I love every meal.
I just want to spread the good news because it helped me however, most people don’t want to hear it so I stopped talking to them about it. The same with Game and the Red Pill. I just keep my mouth shut now.
LikeLike
Now you’re arguing about satiety. The only two factors which are relevant here are nutrient density and willpower.
I’m sure we can all agree that (usually) processed food is a lot more nutrient dense than unprocessed foods.
But that doesn’t mean you have to cut it out to lose weight.
LikeLike
Fine, Fine, Fuck it, Fine
Can we just agree that don’t eat junk food and you won’t get fat?
Don’t eat junk food, eat clean foods and you won’t get fat.
If you are already fat, then eat clean foods and simply measure out the calories of those clean foods.
Weight lifting is a billion times better than cardio for your body and weight management because it builds a better you. It reshapes your body where cardio simply expends energy.
If you eat clean and lift weights, it’s game over for fatness. It’s that simple. I don’t care what the diet is called paleo, mediterran, low GI, eating good food wins the day.
Let’s call it the ‘common sense traditional diet’. How about that?
“Now you’re arguing about satiety. The only two factors which are relevant here are nutrient density and willpower.”
I can’t resist. About willpower, it’s just not that simple. You have to cut out the offending agent that is causing that person to act the way he does. If you have an alcoholic and you want to get him help, you have to get him off the sauce, cold turkey. You can’t simply say to the alkie that you should cut back and simply have three beers and then get pissed when he binges.
It’s the same with food. You can’t simply tell sugar junkies to cut back. They have to get rid of the soda, candy, combos, pasta, etc to get better. They have to cut those things out of their diet full stop. That’s why it bothers me when people hear of the paleo, mediterran, low GI diet and then respond “I can’t do that because I love my junk food”.
It’s like accepting a crack addict saying that he can’t give up crack because he loves it too much. No one is buying that garbage.
LikeLike
Exercise slows down the metabolism????? EXERCISE SLOWS DOWN THE METABOLISM????????? WTF
LikeLike
Link to exercise slows down metabolism:
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/15/exercise-boosts-the-metabolism-it-seems-the-reverse-might-be-true/
LikeLike
Just so we are clear, AntiFem, I agree with you
LikeLike
It is true that after exercise for a few hours muscles burn more calories (compared to people who don’t exercise)
but people who exercise, who are in good shape, who are fit have a slower heartbeat at rest.
LikeLike
Canadian – Agreed, but heartbeat /= base metabolic rate.
Higher fitness/muscle mass increases BMR.
LikeLike
Also, calorie in/calorie out isn’t exactly true, FuriousFerret is right once again. In addition, I didn’t read the Ferret saying one can eat an uncontrolled amount of meat, fruit and vegetables. The Ferret said to eat clean like veggies, meat, and fruit and watch the amount of calories you take.
Check this out:
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/logic-does-not-apply-iii-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/
“Without analysis, many people find it hard to imagine that you can take two diets identical in calories, differing in macronutrient makeup — say high carb vs. ultra-low carb — and lose more weight with one than the other. Or better yet, gain weight with one and lose weight with the other. A calorie is a calorie right? Energy-in equals energy-out, or maybe there’s some other sciency-phrase that we can pull from our ass to say it’s impossible. Ignorance and hubris combine to cause relatively intelligent people to make really stupid comments.”
“A calorie is not a calorie: end of story. The whole argument is essentially one of laziness and ignorance. Our latest dietary iconoclasts accept one set of facts, but refuse to accept another set of facts (yes, it’s a fact that you can make your body more or less efficient, that a calorie is not a calorie, so to speak). A calorie is not a calorie is a direct consequence of the accepted facts. Maybe we’re not taught to think logically anymore, to understand cause-and-effect because truthfully, the conclusion that a calorie is not a calorie could be reached by any four-year-old who’s learned to play connect-the-dots.”
It’s a lot to take in but it’s worth reading the whole article.
[CH: A calorie is not a calorie, but it is something, and ultimately conservation of energy cannot be violated. It’s a bit hyperbolic to deny the effect that total calorie intake will have on weight. Yes, calories from low fiber high GI carbs are worse than calories from fat or protein, but too many or too few calories are just as bad. For evidence of the relevance of total calorie intake on weight, see any skeletal victim of an African famine.]
LikeLike
Another thing that validates FuriousFerret is that exercise alone doesn’t help one lose weight.
http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/logic-does-not-apply-iv-exercise-for-weight-loss/
“When starting a weight loss plan, for almost nine months exercise causes nearly zero weight loss unless accompanied by a dietary intervention. Succinctly: Exercise alone does not cause significant weight loss.”
“If exercise does affect fat loss, we could create very simple experiments to determine the amount. Take one group of subjects and tell them to do nothing—these would be our controls. Now take a second group, and have them keep everything identical in their day except for an added an hour of exercise, or maybe two. The two groups should keep their calories identical to pre-experiment levels.
This one’s a no-brainer. The control group obviously wouldn’t and didn’t lose weight over the test period. The exercising group, of course, must have washboard abs, chiseled pecs or maybe firm sexy thighs and shapely arms.
That’s the promise of every exercise-only program out there but, interestingly, the exercising group suffered a bit of a snag. At the end of the trial, their body weight and body fat levels were identical to when they started. And this isn’t the result of just one study, but 6 different studies [7,11,14,18-20].”
The Ferret is right: The way to go is a combination of moderate cardio, weight lifting, and the right diet
LikeLike
This is still an emerging science, but it’s possible too much exercise indeed slows down the metabolism. Forget about the nourishment replenishment, that’s to be expected, and the body usually needs a sugar fix after exercising. You can drink a protein shake or eat a protein bar with low carbs content, and that should be sufficient to tie you over for a while until mealtime.
Calories in/calories out is indeed true (sorta), but there is evidence that too much exercise in one shot can shut the body’s metabolism. The body is a very smart machine. It knows what amount of exercise or calorie expenditures is normal for you, so if you’re overdoing it in short span of time, it will counter it by shutting down. Therefore, the best exercise is moderate, so that it blends in with your daily life and doesn’t stand out like something different is happening with you. In other words, don’t alert your body. This is especially true for women who overuse the treadmill, which is why I don’t like empty exercise like running. There are so many better activities you can do to lose, tone, or maintain.
http://articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/women-running-into-trouble/
“But then I watch my friend, Jessica, running on the treadmill, day after day, year after year, running like a madwoman and going nowhere. Her body seems to get softer with every mile and the softer she gets the more she runs. I do feel pity for her because everybody, everywhere has convinced her that running is the way to stay slim and toned.
There’s a Jessica in every gym and spotting one is easy. The woman that runs for an hour or more every day on the treadmill, who every month or so sets a new distance or time goal. Maybe the goal encompasses the treadmill workouts; maybe it will be her fifth fund-raising marathon; or maybe she’s competing with runners in Finland via Nike®. The goal doesn’t matter, because years of seeing her on the treadmill exposes the results: she’s still — I’m not going to sugar coat this — fat. Or worse, she’s fatter.”
I love the author; he gives lots of good advice on working out. Read all of his footnotes; it’s been researched for a while, but only now they are putting 2 and 2 together. This issue could be the paradigm shift in exercise science.
LikeLike
The ” a calorie is a calorie” thing does not make sense
If you fed a man 3000 calories of lettuce a day – not other food just lettuce, no salad dressing nothing but lettuce
and you fed a man 3000 calories a day of cheeseburger, nothing but cheeseburgers everyday
does anyone in their right mind believe both men would be at the same weight after a year of that?
what about after 5 years?
I don’t believe there is a documented case on this planet of anyone gaining hundreds of pounds on a diet of lettuce.
a calorie is not a calorie
no more than a watt is a watt,
a watt meter measures watt and tells you a watt is a watt but anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands that the same 100 watts can either make a light bulb glow, make the speaker move and reproduce your music, or it can make your girlfriend’s vibrator vibrate
are those three things the exact same thing because a watt is a watt?
NO
Find me a 500 pound man that has been eating lettuce – only lettuce exclusively, nothing else – everyday for years and years and I will give you 10,000 dollars right now.
LikeLike
i don’t think you mean that exercise slows down metabolism. what it may do if you overdo it is stimulate appetite which you don’t want. moderate exercise to keep in shape is the way to go. exercise is overrated as a weight management strategy.
LikeLike
Yes, CH, I agree. I thought I made it clear that the amount of calories you take in cannot be unlimited, and the ones you do take in have to be from lean meat, fish, seeds, and clean fats like avocado and olive oil – exactly as the Ferret said. In addition, simple carbs and sugars have to be eliminated, and complex carbs need to be in moderation too, if you’re looking to lose weight.
Oh yeah, and I didn’t mention that too few calories could also be detrimental to metabolism, so thanks for adding that.
________________________________________________________
Regarding a diet, a good one that has been discussed often lately, and even more this week is the Mediterranean Diet. It’s a good diet to maintain desired weight once you’re there, and it’s heart healthy too, not to mention delicious satisfying food. It kinda reminds me of the zone diet of 30 (protein)-30 (clean fats)-60 (complex carbs) ratio. If you like fish, lean meat, olive oil, spices, seeds and nuts, it’s perfect.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/mediterranean-diet/CL00011
“Key components of the Mediterranean diet”
The Mediterranean diet emphasizes:
• Getting plenty of exercise
• Eating primarily plant-based foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts
• Replacing butter with healthy fats such as olive oil and canola oil
• Using herbs and spices instead of salt to flavor foods
• Limiting red meat to no more than a few times a month
• Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week
• Drinking red wine in moderation (optional)
According to this research fat is not likely to make you fatter. The right fat could even be very beneficial for heart health. This puts another monkey wrench into liberal thoughts that constantly push vegan. Another chance to tell liberals to STFU!
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/health/mediterranean-diet-can-cut-heart-disease-study-finds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
LikeLike
Willpower and shame are genetic, as is being liberal or conservative, as studies seem to be finding.
LikeLike
“Willpower” is certainly heritable, as is political alignment, as are all things.
Shame, at least in this context, is primarily external to an individual. Both susceptibility to shame and the desire to shame others are heritable (again, like all things).
It is this last thing that is the root of posts like these – a desire to shame.
LikeLike
You are opening up a big can of worms with an army knife. When you are dealing with people with a high desire to shame (read overly feminine mentality), you have to navigate around the triggers in order to teach them anything.
When I first brought up the idea here that a natural diet may be more helpful to obese people, I was told by most of the regulars here that I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist looking for excuses to stuff my face, among other not so creative names.
It’s funny now to see them writing as if none of that happened.
I remember one of the editors told me I was crazy for believing that the government could know something was making people sick, and promote it anyway.
Sometimes you have to just put the idea out there, and step out of the way. Once they figure out you’re telling them what you’re trying to tell them, they’re going to feel insulted for awhile, so just brace yourself.
LikeLike
it’s true that people are less motivated by shame than in the past but our culture was always more of a guilt culture than a shame-based one. we used to shame gay people until they said enough was enough, that they were entitled to the respect for their humanity that we as products of a christian and individualistic culture expect for ourselves.
the process is more advanced here than in europe. (its no accident that the gay rights and civil rights movement started here.) guilt is a more potent motivator here, and it’s hard to make a fat person feel guilt when they are trying, and when it’s an uphill battle due to bad genes being expressed in an environment of abundance.
i’ve lost weight, but not as much as i’d like. it’s _very_ hard, and all those here who claim it’s easy are full of it, as any fattie or former fattie knows. we’d tell you so but we try to be polite.
my advice fwiw- if it comes in a bag or box, don’t eat it. low carb is the best as someone above said.
LikeLike
texting with a chick now with a job bla bla bla who wants to bet against her proposing marrage and having my kid with no child support needed lolzzlolzzzz
LikeLike
What kind of meds are you on ” gunslingergregi ” ? Your commentary here often seems very incoherent.
LikeLike
eh i guess twas always like this and always thus will be
LikeLike
is he black?
LikeLike
He is GBFM,who is 1/2 jewish;i dont know his other half. white? Nigga?
LikeLike
not gbfm not nig lol
LikeLike
hey i love gregi….one of my fave peeps here!
LikeLike
pretty rare when a chick just comes out and says i love you
Thank You
LikeLike
In his book “Fat Chance” the author Dr. Lustig contends that the increase in obesity corresponds with the recent USDA recommendations for grain consumption (starting sometime in the 70s) . People think they are eating healthy when they eat “whole wheat” foods, but obesity and diabetes are still on the rise. That’s why people say they workout and watch what they eat but still can’t lose weight- because they aren’t paying attention to their carb/sugar intake (also they are eating stuff they think is healthy but has sugar and HCFS in it). On top of that they might drink a few glasses of fruit juice a day which is the same thing as drinking soda for the most part. So I do place some of the blame on the food industry, since they want you to become addicted to their products they put loads of sugar and salt in some form in almost everything they sell. The average person doesn’t pay attention to ingredients, and that’s where they have to take some personal responsibility. After all, if you are 30 lbs overweight and can’t figure out why you’re getting fatter, you should be motivated to take some personal responsibility and do some research and figure it out.
But the medical industry, food industry, and the mass media are giving the general public bad information about what a healthy diet consists of. Chances are if it’s in a box or wrapper and it tastes good, it’s been loaded up with sugar and salt.
So I guess you could say there are some mitigating factors at work, but I’m not down with the whole fat acceptance thing. We should be trying to figure out why people are getting fat, not trying to figure out ways to accept an unhealthy lifestyle.
LikeLike
tl;dr, correlation is not causation. Sorry.
It really is just willpower to eat less.
LikeLike
but can we agree that willpower via leptin production-appetite regulation will be easier maintained if one eats a low carb, high veggie/high protein diet? I mean there are enough accredited studies that show this. Sure, if you place two people on a 1000 calorie controlled daily diet they would lose weight…but is there any doubt that the person who subsisted on a 1000 calorie diet filled with highly processed carbs and grains will feel extremely more miserable, than his/her counterpart who subsisted on the same amount of cals but filled with veggies and meat?
LikeLike
^^^^
+1
Also this used to be known as common sense. But now we to prove that junk food =/= quality clean food. LOL.
LikeLike
Oh of course. I just want people to realise that eating for optimal nutrition and weightloss are not necessarily the same thing.
People so often confuse the above factors and then get lost in defining what exactly is required for which goal.
As harsh as I was on FuriousFerret’s post, he was right in that the holy grail of health is a good diet and exercise regime.
LikeLike
Agreed. From a purely weight loss perspective, assuming all other conditions were controlled then yes, all you have to do is adjust calories.
LikeLike
I use the example of chicken and chips for people who can’t figure it out.
Approximately 4 oz lean chicken = 120 calories
Approximately 10 potato chips = 120 calories.
Which will make you feel fuller, longer?
Duh.
I’ve bought ramekins and kiddie separator plates for people. THOSE are actual portion sizes, not the platters and mixing bowls most people eat out of.
LikeLike
Hormonal/Insulin regulation is the be-all end all of fat accumulation.
Human hunter-gatherers had better teeth, were taller and smarter than we are today, because they ate animals / fish / nuts for most of their diet. The introduction of agriculture may have allowed civilization to flourish, but it has been a disaster for the average health of humans.
Fast forward to today – the average work output of energy by modern humans is much lower. We walk less, do less housework and spend more time seated.
HOWEVER
Even many labor-intensive low income peoples are fat. The cheap food that they can afford is processed carbohydrates. Unless you are burning calories like an athlete, the insulin resistance inherent to high carbohydrate diets will cause weight gain. Anyone who says macro nutrient ratio doesn’t matter is full of shit. We can prove this by looking at obesity rates among tribes in the jungles of New Guinea that had explosions of fat accumulation and acne after being introduced to processed hormone laden western foods.
If modern day humans ate what out ancestors ate and limited non vegetable carbohydrate intake to less than 50 grams per day, the obesity epidemic would melt away in a year.
And yes, fat people should be shamed. But we all need to remember that out ancestors were skinny not only because they moved around more, but that they consumed more fats and protein – which are essential for a species that evolved to hunt.
[CH: All good points, but paleo does have its problems. One, there is no way to sustain current world population on a paleo diet. That much meat, fish, nuts and veggie would quickly tap out land and sea resources if all 7 billion people followed it. It may be the case that paleo is a “small world” diet only, or a 1st world diet only.
Two, there is evidence that excessive fat intake (or, perhaps more accurately, insufficient fiber and complex carb intake) raises the risk of heart disease. I know paleo guys balk at this, but I have not been satisfied by the marshaled evidence to the contrary that too much fat isn’t bad for you, especially if your ancestry is from north or east europe. Jayman, though he has a blind spot regarding the malleability of fatsos to lose weight and keep it off, did recently post a series of graphs showing that Euros in colder climes have higher rates of CVD, and postulated that this was due to the meat-heavy diet they ate during winter months when veggies were hard to come by. There hasn’t been enough time for evolution to select against CVD predilection, so the best bet for northern and eastern Euros is to limit their fat and protein intake.
Anyhow, just throwing it out there. Nutrition science is in its relative infancy, and I think the jury is still out on a lot of these pro- or anti-this or that claims.]
LikeLike
I can’t speak for everyone on Earth, but I know for a fact that the way I got fat was from years of not burning as much as I consumed. When I started burning more than I consumed, I lost weight. The only problem in there was learning how and what to eat that would enable me to have the energy to burn more than I was consuming.
It was not because I didn’t have self discipline. I had enough to stay on my nutritionists’ regime, but then I would sleep for 12+ hours a day. I avoided cholesterol and faithfully ate my dry wheat toasts with fat free margarine, but then moved and felt like I was buried in sand up to the neck. It’s probably not this bad for every fat person, but I can bet that it probably is for those who are fat on what is promoted as a “proper diet”.
It may not be good for everyone to live strictly paleo or primal, but it is a good idea to eat natural food and live a natural lifestyle. Not everybody is going to be able to do that 100%, but 20% is at least going to make some drastic improvements.
The important thing is to survive. Have an attitude that your and your loved ones’ survival is important, and do what it takes. Let others do whatever’s keeping them healthy and happy, and you do what keeps you healthy and happy. If you can afford to eat better, do that, and if you can’t then eat as well as you can, but understand what that means.
I personally believe that going natural is the way. I may not be a beauty queen, but I’m better off than I was, and am grateful for all of the paleo/primal/natural diet folks at varying levels of extreme-ness who preach their truth.
LikeLike
me we can go out whenever im pretty flexible till i get a woman in my clutches then i am demanding
chick lol that’s fine Just don’t ask me to cook all the time and do laundry
answers lol
should i tell her i love love love to cook and do laundry
LikeLike
We are a nation of fucking retards if we need to be told that being fat is bad for your health and self esteem.
Surprise, fucking, news flash there.
Our entire social ideology has devolved to the point of “lie to ourselves to make our bad feelings go away”.
Our feelings are more important than the truth, these days.
LikeLike
thats what i said he he he
LikeLike
on that note i guess chris farley john candy john belushi didn’t make it
just don’t do drugs
LikeLike
Compared to those reckless pleasure seekers of today, I think the Americans from fifty years ago were just more sensible (and self-responsible) when enjoying themselves.
On the topic of people using studies to excuse their being overweight, I’ve chanced upon a thread titled Nutrition and Education at some random forum. Apparently, the mod there believes that “being fat is not a choice if you are working poor in North America”, and is using surveys/researches of how many poor people are fat to back it all up. Reading that, I was like . . . are those countless fit waiters/waitresses/clothing salesperson out there actually robots in disguise? Most importantly, is it suggesting that it is easier for the middle class – whose lives involve siting at work and socializing via food – to be thin? Then again, that mod also believes that self-making peanut butter equals not eating “superfatty things”. That, and she leads a non-active lifestyle, using stress and depression to say exercise is “not a choice” for her. There were a few people offering healthy eating tips on the thread – tips that she either rudely shot down or quietly ignores, depending on her apparent relationship to the posters involved. No wonder she ends up “still flabby enough to be uncomfortable with it.”
LikeLike
OT: Man criticizes divorce court judge, gets sent to jail
http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/25/criticize-a-judge-or-anyone-else-go-to-j
LikeLike
“Professionals involved in hiring placed more emphasis on how comfortable or excited they were about candidates than on applicants’ cognitive or technical skills.” Translation: You need game to get a job.
http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2013/02/15/more-proof-that-hiring-and-dating-arent-so-different/
LikeLike
This is a very important point. They are exactly alike – bottom line, it’s all about being liked.
LikeLike
Check out a good picture of the ‘scientist’ Dr. Katherine Flegal, that continues to stand by the claim being overweight is good for your health.
No surprise, not attractive in any way. Your eyes have been warned.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/profiles/blogs/does-obesity-equal-longevity?xg_source=activity
LikeLike
Indeed, because we’re not above using ad hominems here…
[Heartiste: Welcome to the hate machine. Up next: crisis and observation.]
LikeLike
When someone gives me advice on health, I look to their own health. Just like I’d look at the finances of someone giving me financial advice, the careers of someone giving me career advice, the strength of someone giving me weight lifting advice, or the game of someone giving me advice on women.
You’re a fool if you don’t look at what someone’s own advice has reaped them in rewards.
LikeLike
Yes, her better years are definitely behind her.
LikeLike
“No surprise, not attractive in any way. Your eyes have been warned.”
Well, to be fair, she’s a much older woman, so she isn’t going to look like a budding beauty. So your point is irrelevant in this case.
But I would agree that in general people giving advice better not have the issue they are advising on.
LikeLike
They managed the willpower and shame.
The availability of cheap calories probably has more to do with it than willpower.
LikeLike
Or even shame. Not that shaming fatties isn’t a good thing.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It takes a lot more effort to be obese or even very overweight than it does to be average weight. Of course these people are much less healthy, you cannot get obese eating like a normal human being unless something is medically wrong with you. You have to resort to junk food and binging- which of course makes you unhealthy!
LikeLike
@JayMan, cheap calories (with plenty of hormones etc) are more available but it’s still willpower that separates the fatties from the rest of us. I’d add in much mroe sedentary lifestyles (TV, less labor intense jobs, technology, etc) One can argue that more willpower is needed today but you can’t get around the fact that plenty of people manage to avoid obesity through personal responsibility. It’s also useful to look at other nations. US is far more obese than other developed Western nations like Europe and Japan. Those cultures in the world, however, offer much more fat shaming than here.
LikeLike
What separates the thin from the obese will always separate them (genes). It’s equally foolish to compare apples to oranges and look at other nations in this regard (unless that’s your point).
[Heartiste: In 1950, 10% of Americans were obese. In 2013, that number is heading upward of 40%. So, no, genes are not what separates the thin from the obese, unless you want to argue that the genes of hundreds of millions of Americans changed radically in the last 60 years.]
LikeLike
are you typing with a special wand so you don’t mash multiple keys at once, or do you have a special keyboard with extra large keys to accomodate your gravy filled fingers?
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
Jeans have changed though. Blame it on Brittay Spears. The trend of low, low, low rise jeans caused people to not notice they were gaining weight and getting a muffin top because there, literally, was no fabric around their waists to signal too them “too tight!” Now there is all kinds of spandex in jeans. Jeggins are popular. Without clothing that does not change its shape, its harder to know if ours is.
LikeLike
Hmmm… thats a good point Kate.
You cannot deny you are getting fat when you have to lay on the floor to zip up your jeans.
LikeLike
with pliers 🙂
LikeLike
Your good genes make you look good in your good jeans
LikeLike
I don’t want to admit it but I larfed.
LikeLike
Me too- at all my spelling and grammatical errors.
LikeLike
he he he
LikeLike
No, we’ve been through this. And I know what you’ve said about the non-nuance-comprehending element of your audience, but genes don’t operate in vacuum. They operate in the environment they find themselves in. The environment of today is different than the environment of 60 years ago. Hence, the thing that makes the difference between people today in terms of thinness or fatness is heredity.
[Heartiste: Yes, we’ve been through this, and you’re misleading people. If you want to argue that food supply — quality and quantity — is what’s making the difference between Americans then and now, you’d be standing on firmer ground (and arguing in better faith). But you use the word genes, and only genes, to muddy the waters and absolve fatties of their responsibility for their woeful conditions.]
I made this point to counter ATrain’s comparisons of individuals today. You cannot consider what makes one individual different from the next without considering genes. Doing so would be committing the very same error you criticize blank-slaters for making.
[How fast does genetic selection work? Is fifty years enough time for natural or sexual selection to skew the population of people with “fat genes” until the number of obese has more than quadrupled in amount? Rhetorical.
Please get back to this discussion when the premise of your argument doesn’t depend on violating the law of conservation of energy.]
LikeLike
@JayMan, are you arguing the following?
1. Human genes have not changed from 50 years ago
2. Human food supply has changed, specifically, calories are much cheaper, less healthy, and more available than 50 years ago
3. Willpower among Americans w/r/t dieting has remained more or less constant
3. The expression of human genes under this new food supply, however, is obesity
If I’m reading your argument correctly, I interpret it as a weak one. You are essentially arguing our DNA compulsion to maximize caloric intake has only recently begun to manifest an epidemic of obesity because of food supply, not willpower. There are many counters to this thesis. The most obvious is, why are obesity rates much higher for poor people? Calories are, if anything, more available to higher incomes. We should see obesity rates increase with income if your point is true. Instead we see the opposite, which supports the more common sense explanation – poor people have less willpower or weaker future-time-orientation
LikeLike
“JayMan, are you arguing the following?”
1. Human genes have not changed from 50 years ago
2. Human food supply has changed, specifically, calories are much cheaper, less healthy, and more available than 50 years ago
3. Willpower among Americans w/r/t dieting has remained more or less constant
3. The expression of human genes under this new food supply, however, is obesity”
More or less yes, that’s what I’m saying.
“If I’m reading your argument correctly, I interpret it as a weak one. You are essentially arguing our DNA compulsion to maximize caloric intake has only recently begun to manifest an epidemic of obesity because of food supply, not willpower. There are many counters to this thesis. The most obvious is, why are obesity rates much higher for poor people?”
For one, threshold effects. Prior to about 70 years ago, the poor were in a poor place with respect to food security, and survival in general. Indeed, since poor people are more impulsive overall, the alleviation of food scarcity has led to increasing obesity in this group.
The other aspect is ala Charles Murray’s Coming Apart. The poor of today are “poorer” genetically speaking as well. Today’s poor is increasingly composed of the “genetic dregs” of society, concentrating all manner of ills there.
“Instead we see the opposite, which supports the more common sense explanation – poor people have less willpower or weaker future-time-orientation”
As you see, I’m not arguing against that point.
I will add that the poor probably have “poorer” metabolism as well and are more likely to be genetically unhealthy thanks to a higher levels of genetic load.
[Heartiste: Let’s keep this simple. This means no obfuscating technical discussions about heredity that don’t address the crux of the argument. In the interest of simplicity, and to avoid confounding factors, we’ll focus on whites.
Jayman, do you believe that in the past fifty years it is more likely that white Americans:
a. have been evolutionarily selected on a massive scale for an increase in genes coding for fat accumulation and difficulty in losing fat or
b. have been eating more food and worse food, and moving around less?
(a) or (b). Those are your choices.]
LikeLike
Are you deliberately misconstruing what I am saying or do you just not understand?
[Heartiste: Did you, or did you not, use the word “genes” in your initial reply to explain the difference between obesity rates in 1950 and today?]
Let me say again for clarity: if you change the environment, you can have considerable changes in phenotype without changing genotypes.
[Excellent. So you are admitting that genes are not responsible for the obesity epidemic that has exploded in the past fifty years. Progress is made.]
Phenotypes are always heritable,
[What about facial disfigurement from a lightning strike?]
but the definition of heritability is the portion of variation in phenotypes that can be traced to variation in genotypes in the environment in which they’re expressed. Natural selection can have nothing to do with the differing phenotypes over time if the environment changes.
[This technical nuance is fine as it goes, but it does nothing to refute the substance of this post; namely, that stuffing their faces with bad food is what’s making more Americans fatter than ever, and the putative immutability of their genes has got nothing to do with it. If we take what you write here at face value and not just as the sweaty backpedaling of someone who blurted out a falsehood and wishes to retract without anyone noticing, then you have in actuality no disagreement at all with the original post. Are you just arguing then to assuage a bruised ego? Or do you want to give fatties a shred of hope thinking that the kraken wouldn’t smell blood in the water and surface for the feast?]
It this case, that environment may be the change in the quantity and or quality of available food.
“Yes, we’ve been through this, and you’re misleading people … But you use the word genes, and only genes, to muddy the waters and absolve fatties of their responsibility for their woeful conditions.”
I am certainly not the one misleading anyone here. The thing that makes one individual differ from another today in terms of body weight is mostly the individuals’ genes.
[Bullshit. This is the kind of spergy adherence to obfuscating technicality and reliance on shifting goal posts that raises hopes in fat fucks and helps absolve them of personal responsibility. We aren’t comparing one individual to another today. We are comparing populations over time. The thing that makes the proportion of individuals in the population differ from the proportion of individuals in the population fifty years ago in terms of body weight is the quality and quantity of food eaten, and the amount of calories burned in movement. There has been no change in the population’s genetic profile sufficiently widespread to account for a gene-origin increase in the proportion of the population that is now obese or overweight as compared to fifty years ago.
If you want to propound in good faith in the interest of technical precision that doesn’t muddy the waters and tells it in clear language everyone, even a fattie, can understand, what you would say instead is that, apart from the Hispanic migration, there is no evidence that a selective sweep increasing a propensity to accumulate fat has occurred or radically changed the gene profile of Americans in such an evolutionarily short time span. Instead, there is evidence that most humans have the genes which code for biological processes that result in putting on weight in an environment of little exercise, empty carbs and high calories. Said genes which will not prevent those who have gotten fat from losing the fat by eschewing the modern diet and eating better and moving around more.]
Genes operate in a variety of pathways, including affecting how much one eats, what one eats, and how one burns/stores what one eats. These are simply facts. You may try to zero in on behaviors, but, as HBD Chick would say, where does behavior come from?
[If I point a gun at your head and tell you to cut your calories to lose weight, would you do it? Or are genes so deterministic you would simply sit there and take the bullet?]
LikeLike
I was not deliberately misconstruing your argument, but your elaboration isn’t inconsistent with my paraphrase. I reiterated your point that the genotype hasn’t changed, but the phenotypes have, because of the change in environment. That is your core argument,and on its surface is true. Your corollary is that today as well as before, some people have the genotype for obesity in today’s environment and some don’t – the genes are the source of variation. Fair enough, but here is where I take issue: You assume the environment is out of our control, like air quality or lead paint. Our dietary environment is determined by our culture, behavior, and values. Yes, our genes WILL manifest obesity in this environment but it is our culture that demands cheap, available, high calorie food without fear of shame or consequence. This is why it’s useful to compare to other nations where the dietary norms are vastly different (Japan). Your argument is flawed at the root.
You cannot blames genes for expressing themselves in reaction to a change in environment that our culture engineered
LikeLike
‘If I point a gun at your head and tell you to cut your calories to lose weight, would you do it? Or are genes so deterministic you would simply sit there and take the bullet?’
LOL ❤
LikeLike
“Heartiste: Did you, or did you not, use the word “genes” in your initial reply to explain the difference between obesity rates in 1950 and today?”
Please read carefully what I actually said. To save time, let’s review:
ATrain wrote:
“One can argue that more willpower is needed today but you can’t get around the fact that plenty of people manage to avoid obesity through personal responsibility.”
Note the bolded part. To which I said:
“What separates the thin from the obese will always separate them (genes).”
ATrain was making the claim that “personal responsibility” renders some individuals less obese than others, which is a statement about differences between individuals today. At which point I noted the role that genes play in such differences.
[Heartiste: If what renders some individuals today thinner than others are a deliberate avoidance of junk food, processed food and overeating, and an intentional effort to refrain from long stretches of sedentary sloth, then yes ATrain is right to say that personal responsibility plays a role. Fat shits know what makes them fat, and yet they choose to do nothing about it.
What you are arguing, in contrast, is that the difference between fatsos and thin people is solely a result of the few remaining thin people being blessed with genes that can withstand an environmental onslaught of bad food, excessive calories and a sedate lifestyle without getting fat. But thin people tend to have better eating habits and exercise habits than fat people. So it can’t solely be a palimpsest of thin people genes surviving a fatso holocaust. Before you say “but behavior is genetic” allow me to note that genes are not deterministic. They are probabilistic.
Seeing as how fat people on *monitored* calorie restricted diets lose weight and keep it off, there is nothing in the view you have taken that precludes fatsos from ever losing weight. They are not doomed by their genes, iow, which is the impression your initial comment tried to leave (and don’t deny it). And neither are there more of those “fat predisposing” genes around today than there were fifty years ago. It is mathematically impossible for such hypothetical fat genes to spread that widely among so many people in so short a time.
Again, too, there is really nothing in your backpedaling follow-up comments that disagrees with what is written in this post. Read it carefully. You lashed out because the post bothered you; it ticked you off. You let your emotions get the better of you. Not very objective or scientific to react emotionally, is it? But boy oh boy did I enjoy the delicious moment of crisis and observation.]
“This is the kind of spergy adherence to obfuscating technicality and reliance on shifting goal posts that raises hopes in fat fucks and helps absolve them of personal responsibility. We aren’t comparing one individual to another today.”
ATrain certain was, and that was the point I was addressing. Any statement of the form “X person does this, why can’t Y person” is inherently an individual comparison.
[Forget about ATrain. We’re discussing how you replied to me.]
“There has been no change in the population’s genetic profile sufficiently widespread to account for a gene-origin increase in the proportion of the population that is now obese or overweight as compared to fifty years ago.”
Note that I never claimed otherwise. Please do not state that I did.
[Your very first comment was misleading in use of the term “genes” to explain differences between thin and fat people. Genes is misleading because it makes people think that fatsos are cursed by immutable DNA fate which will make them fat and keep them fat, no matter what effort they expend or what their environment is like.]
“IF I point a gun at your head and tell you to cut your calories to lose weight, would you do it? Or are genes so deterministic you would simply sit there and take the bullet?
First of all, how long are you going the leave the gun there?
[Every time you reach for a donut.]
Are you going to train a gun on the heads of every overweight American? Think about that.
[It’s a hypothetical thought experiment designed to demonstrate the falsity of your claim that fat shits have no control over the dietary or exercise choices they make.]
This is the crux of the argument. Debates about heredity are usually about changeability. Can the trait in question be changed?
[Some traits are less changeable than others. Height and IQ, for instance, appear to be largely unaffected by behavioral changes to alter them, although they can rise or fall in response to early life nutritional and rearing impacts. An innate quantity of willpower, should such a thing exist, appears to be more changeable than IQ. Humans are adaptable after all, and this adaptability exerts more influence over personality and behavioral traits than it does over physical traits. The brain functions partly from immutable characteristics, partly from inherited capability to adapt to environmental stressors. If this were not true, we should do nothing with anybody — perhaps just drop the toddlers off on a rock ledge somewhere — and let the gene units express themselves as they are predetermined to do. The end result would be the same as what we have now, if a solely deterministic outlook is your world view.]
Strictly speaking, knowing how heritable something is doesn’t answer that question. The degree of heritability is not a statement on how changeable something is.
“there is evidence that most humans have the genes which code for biological processes that result in putting on weight in an environment of little exercise, empty carbs and high calories.”
We don’t actually know what it is in the environment that makes the difference. It’s not clear that it’s increased carbohydrate consumption or reduced exercise. Our best bet is increased total calories, but for now we have to say that the cause is not nailed down.
“Said genes which will not prevent those who have gotten fat from losing the fat by eschewing the modern diet and eating better and moving around more.”
Ah that’s the kicker. THIS is what we’re really arguing about. Indeed, all evidence we have today points firmly against this notion. There has yet to be a single dietary or lifestyle change that reliably results in permanent weight loss. All diets have thus far failed. This includes low-carb diets. As well, exercise’s role appears to be minimal.
[The evidence compiled strongly implicates sugar, low fiber processed carbs, and excessive omega 6 fat intake (paleo dieters are probably off in their assertion that high fat diets are ok). I believe (but can’t find the studies atm) that veggie consumption as a percentage of total cals is down too, and people who don’t eat enough veggies are typically fatter and unhealthier. While exercise per se does not seem to have the restorative wegiht-loss impact one would suppose, there is evidence that total number of daily calories burned is down because people are generally more sedentary than they used to be. And many of these anti-exercise studies only look at low-speed, long distance jogging, which is not the ideal form of exercise for weight loss. Walking for long periods of time is more beneficial than jogging on a treadmill 2 miles every other day. Sardinians live a long time partly because they do a lot of daily walking, in addition to eating a healthy Med diet.
Weight gain after successfully losing the weight — yo yo dieting — is almost always caused by failure to stick with the lower calorie lifestyle. There are studies which clearly show that fatties on *monitored* diets lose the weight and keep it off. Being monitored apparently does wonders for one’s willpower.]
Reducing the prevalence of obesity is far from as simple as you portray. Yet you seem to come from stance as if you know what the answer is.
[I know better than to cavalierly wave around the word “genes” and tacitly suggest fatties are not responsible for their repulsive conditions.]
Indeed, if your solution needs to be as drastic holding a gun to one’s head example, is even worth pursuing? That’s another important question.
[So you agree with me that behavior is modifiable, given enough… incentive. What we are arguing over now is the degree of incentive. I say cruel shaming is an excellent incentive for getting people to eat the right thing and get off their lazy duffs. If that were not true, fatties wouldn’t be so up in arms about the notion of shaming them into a socially and sexually palatable size. Instead, they would wave off the idea as obviously ineffectual, much like a person seeking to grow his wealth would not bother to engage with an insane person claiming that licking asphalt was the best way to make a million dollars.]
LikeLike
There’s a good game concept that can apply here, I think. There’s a lot of very smart (sounding) rationalisation coming from JayMan, but it’s ultimately horse shit.
Don’t dance to his frame.
LikeLike
Well one thing is not up for debate: JayMan is fat.
LikeLike
No doubt. Maybe he’ll go to some dieting camp, then return here to CH — freshly vitalized — and pledge fealty. He could then join us in our heckling of the fatties so that others might also be browbeaten into changing their forklifty ways! It’d be just like Darth Vader finally turning on the Emperor!!
Stop laughing, you guys. It could happen.
LikeLike
JM has a small dick.
LikeLike
Someone said Jayman has a small dick
Jayman will post a twenty page comment saying that had he been born 50 years earlier, when the genes of US people were different, he would have a big dick
PS: The reason I – Canadian Friend – post short comments is because I am afraid my genes will have changed before my comment is completed
/sarcasm off
LikeLike
I actually read the arguments being purported by Jay and Heartiste….for the most part it was an interesting read. Obviously Jay’s arguments were cogent enough to get Heartiste as involved as he was….respect.
[Heartiste: Jayman sets himself apart from the usual suspects simply by avoiding the bad habit of putting words in his opponent’s mouths.]
LikeLike
i don’t think, ch, that you understand the carbohydrate hypothesis, which is that insulin drives appetite and that eating sugars and highly processed carbs eventually disrupt the signals of satiety the brain sends. _everyone_ eats and sooner or later will lose interest in eating more, even fat people!
why are those signals more delayed in fat people? the disruption of complex feedback loops governing appetite. why are some more vulnerable than others to the consumption of sugars and these carbs? genes that were never expressed back in the day because sugar and highly processed carbs were hard to come by.
LikeLike
JayMan doesn’t know if he has a small dick. He wasn’t seen it or been able to touch it for years..
LikeLike
In the past (50+ years ago), the poor did not have as much access to sugar, salt, and a whole lot of other things that they now have access to. In the south, folks used to make ribbon cane syrup and other extractions from sweet plants and dried fruits because one might be able to buy a stock of sugar once or twice a year, and that was it for the year.
Supermarkets just weren’t around in many places. You had to go to rely on distributors on or near some farms. Many people still relied on horses and mules.
Sometimes, when people have a history of poverty or just low infrastructure, they don’t know how to cope with what is now considered a “normal” life in a western country.
You are welcome to view these things as excuses if you like. Everybody educated on the subject though, doesn’t have to agree.
On the “conservation of energy” thing, try putting some sugar in your gas tank, and seeing how well it runs. The human body is a kind of machine, and the quality and type of fuel matters just as much or more than how much of it there is. We won’t even get into the variations in model of the machines.
LikeLike
… In the past (50+ years ago), the poor did not have as much access to sugar, salt,…
the problem with that argument is that access to HEALTHY food has ALSO improved in the last 50 years.
LikeLike
A celery stick dipped in sugar still has sugar.
LikeLike
[Heartiste: In 1950, 10% of Americans were obese. In 2013, that number is heading upward of 40%. So, no, genes are not what separates the thin from the obese, unless you want to argue that the genes of hundreds of millions of Americans changed radically in the last 60 years.]
On top of that, the majority of “obese” people in the 50’s were labourers, not layabouts (muscle weights more than fat.) Barring wealth to the point of indolensce, an “obese” person in the 50’s was far more likely to resemble a flabby Brock Lesnar
Or my personal favourite, Uschi Digard (note the visible waist, which makes the oversized chest and hips appear even larger.. http://fuckyeahuschidigard.tumblr.com
An obese man in the 50’s may have had a gut, but his arms and legs were pure steel. An obese woman would have had the strength to Serena Williams, but without the visible muscle definition. Comparing pre-50’s obesity to current obesity is like comparing apples and horse apples.
LikeLike
“[Heartiste: In 1950, 10% of Americans were obese. In 2013, that number is heading upward of 40%. So, no, genes are not what separates the thin from the obese, unless you want to argue that the genes of hundreds of millions of Americans changed radically in the last 60 years.]”
Though it may not seem observable to you now, people did more manual labor in the 1950s.
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2013/02/21/are_women_fat_because_they_do_less_housework.html
“Using a large data set of self-reported time-use information dating back to 1965, the researchers determined that the time women (aged 19 to 64) spent on housework decreased from 25.7 hours per week in 1965 to only 13.3 hours per week in 2010. By their estimation, that translates to a reduction in caloric expenditure of about 1,857 calories per week, a drastic shift (see table below). Positive energy balance — when caloric intake exceeds expenditure — drives weight gain.”
It is not willpower and it is not culture. We just have more and better machines now.
[Heartiste: Machines are part of the culture. As are long commutes and office cubicles sitting on our collective asses staring at screens.]
LikeLike
People are forced to sit down 10-12 hours a day until age 26, when they finally get their master’s degree, just to get a good job. It’s no surprise obesity is a severe problem! And people in the 50’s could drive 70-75 mph in a safe inner city, but now Americans average 30 mph in sprawling suburbs. Time spent driving used to be exercise time.
Well, it was like this from 1992 to maybe 2010ish or so. It’s really only recently you hear about the occasional good paying blue collar job and how expensive/overrated it is to be a professional. It takes time for culture to change with economics.
LikeLike
…..and we sit for our jobs too…..and our leisure time.
LikeLike
Yet another reason to avoid the dinner or movie date.
LikeLike
Maybe its a neurosis, but I can’t think of anything more unsexy than going to eat food with someone you are hoping to make a sexual connection with. Food is so stinky!! Chewing is disgusting, as is the rest of the digestion process. I always liked going out for ice cream, or more usual drinks with dates. Food is never sexy.
LikeLike
I always liked movie dates. It gives you something to talk about.
[Heartiste: Movie dates are great… after you’ve banged. Before, not so good. That’s two+ hours of little talking and even less bedroom guiding.]
LikeLike
A movie date is only acceptable if the theater has Skittles.
LikeLike
Well, I love food, but a full stomach does not make one feel sexy. A light repast after “adult fun time” is much better. And movies, well, if its with a guy you like, you’re uncomfortable because you’d rather be sitting on his lap, and, if its a with a guy you don’t like, you’re uncomfortable because you’d rather be sitting a seat away.
LikeLike
Yes! i totally agree! Eating after sex is fun and relaxing. Beforehand, it’s gross. I don’t get “romantic meals”….all that garlic. Ugh. Sick.
LikeLike
Bacon, cheese, crackers, grapes, chocolate covered almonds, YUM! Food you can share is good.
LikeLike
I’d rather drinks than food myself, but if you have a low tolerance for alcohol, it might not be the best course of action if you are attempting to preserve whatever esteem you have lol
LikeLike
I had ten gins on a first date once. He carried me out of the bar “The Bodyguard” style and put me in a cab.
Surprisingly enough he called the next day, took me out, and asked to be my boyfriend. Betas, lol.
LikeLike
I rarely drink. Imagine how this disappoints men. They look almost as sad as when I have no crazy college stories to tell them. Dating is a pretense and, in most cases, a waste of time 😦 How’s your tall drink of water?
LikeLike
@ Flavia, lol
I remembered my ex who I dated 3-4 years, great guy, but Beta too. Anyway, we had gone out for three months steady and he invited me over to his mom’s cottage to spend a long weekend. His mom, her partner and his two sisters were there at the cottage as well. So that night, we make a bon fire and we start drinking, I get sooooooooooo wasted, that I puked RIGHT in from of his mom (First time meeting mom), I was absolutely mortified. I thought that it was pretty much over between us, but surprisingly his mom thought it was hilarious and he found it endearing. Who knows man.
@ Kate, why don’t you drink? I don’t think that I can date someone who doesn’t drink….its just so much a part of my culture and ‘niche’…sad but true.
and Tall drink is great 😉 we are going to a lounge event on Friday. Really like him *blushes*
LikeLike
YAY!!!
Many reasons. Habit. I like to stay sharp. Also, alcohol is a depressant. Don’t need any help in that category.
LikeLike
The reason most people are overweight is because they eat wheat, sugar and other carb-loaded products. Just quitting wheat would cause some of their weight to drop off. Quitting sugar and dairy products would help them to lose more weight and clear up their acne at the same time. I speak from experience. See Wheat Belly:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543/ref=sr_1_1
LikeLike
To anybody saying it’s genes/available food, etc., I have some bad information. Last week:
Monday- I went to AYCE wings and drank a pitcher of beer.
Tuesday- I ate a 1/3 lb burger loaded with fried mushrooms and bleu cheese along with a tray of chicken bacon ranch fries.
Wendesday- I ate a half pound burrito for lunch and 2 slices of stuffed buffalo chicken pizza for dinner.
Thursday- 3 hot dogs for dinner, a pitcher of beer at a bar, and another 2 slices of buffchick pizza after the bar.
Friday- 4 double jack and cokes, 6 beers, 2 huge chicken sandwiches
Saturday- 3 double jack and cokes, 8 beers, a glass of scotch, a 2 pound burrito I drunkenly assembled and ate
Sunday- Tacos for lunch, 1/3 pound burger with onion rings and fries for dinner, 3 beers, 1glass of scotch.
My mom is fat. She has fat genes. My dad sure doesn’t have thin ones. Based on my diet and genetics, it would be a safe bet that if those were the only two things that counted I’d be a continent. Thankfully, exercise counts and the fact that the first thing I do when I roll out of bed every morning is 50 pushups, 220 crunches, I keep a fit figure.
Exercise>diet. Fatties hate it because it hurts, though, which is why they put so much effort into blaming genetics and available food.
LikeLike
Right, because your genes are identical to both your mom’s and your dad’s…
Call me when you’ve compared yourself with your identical twin.
LikeLike
“Right, because your genes are identical to both your mom’s and your dad’s…”
Lolwut? Cause genetics don’t exist and are a social construct. Punnett squares? The hell are those. Did you fail biology? Do you not understand the heritability of traits? No “thin genes” in the family. Just normal and fat.
Judging by your debate with CH about American genetics turning upside down in 40 years, I must conclude that you are some sort of pudgy tard who can count to potato. I’m not dignifying any more of your retarded blubbering with a response.
I’m partially doing this out of concern for your health as elevating your heart rate to dangerous levels might result in a heart-attack.
LikeLike
He sounds like a lazy fatass. Emphasis on LAZY.
LikeLike
That’s funny,
Jayman assures us it is genes that make us fat but when he argues with Karamazov, suddenly genes don’t matter much
LikeLike
Let me help you out:
Karamazov is arguing that because he is thin, but both his parents aren’t, the heritability of body weight can’t be that high. The flaw in his logic is that he is not a clone of either of his parents. Parents’ DNA differ from their children’s (that’s the whole point of sexual reproduction). Children get 50% of their genes from each parent (which each sibling getting a different 50%). The precise combination of genes that Karamazov has, which code for his physiology AND his behaviors, can very well lead him to be quite different from either of his parents in many traits. As I say, the devil is in the details.
This is not even to say anything of the ~20% variance in BMI that is not genetic in origin.
His statement about “thin genes” is silly. He has no idea what genes either of his parents carry (but don’t express themselves).
Of course, there’s is also the possibility that one or both his “parents” aren’t his parents…
LikeLike
Correction of my previous comment:
JayMan, Identical twins don’t count. Your identical twin will be 99.99% copy of you, even down to his mentality, which is why Identical twins often choose the same jobs and careers, even if they never lived together or knew of the other’s existence. It’s has been proven that very little in the way of nurture affects identical twins, which means that much of our behavior and physical condition is indeed genetic. So identical twins is an extreme example.
However, heredity is indeed at play, but you’re not taking into consideration that just because one has a propensity to develop a condition because of his/her hereditary, it doesn’t mean that someone can’t fight off a disease or a condition. For instance, people with a history of heart disease in the family need to watch their cholesterol much more than a person who doesn’t have such hereditary issue. However, it doesn’t mean it’s a given they will die of heart disease. It means they have a greater chance. Likewise with weight. Some people have a propensity to become fat; no one is denying that. However, they can still watch their diet and shed the extra lbs, and if that doesn’t work find other ways. There are a slew of non-invasive procedures that can melt off the excess fat if you’re moderately overweight..
No, I think certain people just don’t care how they look because they were told they must be accepted the way they are, and as long as they feel good about it, it’s right. The Left is often feelings-based. So if you feel good about something, according to the Left it makes it right. And the Left treats every issue of contention with the same approach – if you feel good then it’s right. It never bothers to investigate the ramifications of decision-making based on feelings alone.
LikeLike
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Just as importantly, you don’t know what I’m talking about…
LikeLike
Actually Karamazov, I think diet > exercise. Now I am BIG on exercise, I am currently doing crossfit, as I am at the lower range of my BMI and cardio will make me underweight, so I am not saying this because I am lazy fat slob etc.I find if anything, exercise is more helpful for my mental health (being a lawyer, it was that or drugs/alcoholism lol) and I like the tone strength training gives me. BUT, exercise is NOT greater than diet. In fact, I d argue, that from a functional well being and/or weight loss perspective DIET is 80% of it. Why? Well most people doing exercise at one particular time will burn on average 300-600 calories per hour. The higher end of that is not even equal to what will be eaten in a typical high fat high carb american diet.
LikeLike
I’m willing to grant that a certain level of compromise is required between the two views. Perhaps this will explain a bit.
Weight is largely inertial. The human body resists change. I was an athlete (long distance runner) in high school for all 12 seasons and in middle school for 2. This developed a body from early on that burned many calories at rest. I kept up athletic activities in college and now as a graduate.
A body with a strong cardiovascular system (resting heart rate around 50 bpm) burns more calories at rest. A body with a lot of lean muscle burns more calories at rest. With an athletic history, that’s a lot of calorie-burning already in place without even breaking a sweat.
Think of it as a V8 Mustang running in park next to a 4 cyl. Ford Fiesta, also running in park. The Mustang will chew through fuel at an extreme rate compared to its more efficient, economical cousin.
My coach advised an extra 1000 calories a day over the prescribed average for us, and an additional 300 for every mile we ran that day over 4. He was a nutritionist as well. It sounds insane, but a lot of us were in calorie debt some days.
Exercising seems immediately unhelpful when compared to dieting because it is doing two things at once: burning calories and building muscle. Muscle takes calories to run. It’s rather like a “J” curve with working out and maintaining form. I’d advocate dieting for people who are serious about dropping the weight stat and then tuning up, but the best selling point for guys is that they get to keep the milkshakes, burgers, onion rings, and beer.
I feel a blog post coming on about this at some point. A lot of guys are operating on misinformation and there are a lot of people hawking bad weight-control theories.
LikeLike
In my opinion its 50/50. If you only diet you will eventually lose too much muscle mass which will lower the amount of calories your body burns off every day. This will, at best, give you a skinny-fat body and force you to eat like a famine victim.
The best way to do it is to train with weights and hold your calories at maintenance, so that you can eat like a normal person(meaning a normal person in Europe and not the average Amerilard) and keep your muscle mass. You can lose weight by slightly lowering your daily calories(by around 300 so you can still eat normally and not starve yourself) and doing a little extra cardio after your regular workouts. When youre done losing weight you can simply stop doing cardio and up the calories to your new maintenance level.
LikeLike
It’s willpower, or the lack thereof. While it’s true that the chemically-processed foods of today are as ubiquitous as the fatties peering through the glass counters of a Baskin Robbins, the fact remains that there are still healthy options available to just about everyone. The only question is… do the mongoloid manatees have the willpower to stop scarfing down Twinkies and pick up an apple, instead?
LikeLike
You unknowingly bring up a good point.
Do manatees have the willpower to be as thin as snakes? If only they would just stop stuffing their faces, whales could be as thin as eels.
Willpower is just an old fashioned word for impulse control, and different people have that in different degrees. Someone with low impulse control with regards to anger may be able to keep themselves from eating too much, but not be able to keep themselves from putting their fist through a plate glass window because their football team lost a game. To say which is better or worse is an arbitrary judgment, which one certainly has the right to, but then should not try to pretend they are being objective.
I don’t personally care that some people aren’t going to like me because I’m fat. What bothers me is that these people with low impulse control with anger, and who are additionally resistant to learning from experience (that every overweight person around them doesn’t croak at 30) have been allowing laws to be passed that make the problem worse instead of better. All that has to happen is that some people in white coats say something, and it is used to fuel your hatred, and you get duped into supporting things like meat being replaced with soy in school lunches.
If all this shame and anger about obesity was leading to something positive, I might just shut up and not have too much of a problem with it. I’d know the herd was moving in a direction that would enable me to be able to occasionally buy a jar of marinara sauce, which I can’t do now because it’s got soy oil and unpronounceable additives.
You don’t have to like fat people or date fat women. Just be careful what you let yourself get sucked into.
LikeLike
who you gonna believe fatties?
Heartiste’s hard truth that it’s under your control or JayMan’s pretty lie that it’s outside your control?
LikeLike
Jayman is not telling people individually that being fat is out of their control. What he’s saying is that behavior doesn’t happen in either a social or genetic vacuum. What you think, you think because you can think it. If you couldn’t think it, you wouldn’t.
LikeLike
Excellent way of putting it, Nicole! In fact, I’m going to tweet that…
LikeLike
Anorexia is massively over-repesented in girls who get good grades:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/07/09/aje.kwp166.full
Independent of family social characteristics, women with the highest school grades had a higher risk of eating disorders (hazard ratio = 7.7, 95% confidence interval: 2.5, 24.1 for high compared with low grades in Swedish, adjusted for parental education).
—
I can’t judge the correctness of that Harvard panel. They are probably right about the sick people but they don’t give any data to support that. That whole part about the “credibility of science” should give people some pause though.
LikeLike
“Anorexia is massively over-repesented in girls who get good grades”
——————————————————————-
and neegas who don’t even live long enough to flunk out
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/ultimate_in_unfair.htm
LikeLike
this is one of the easy flavours of bullshit to pick apart, its one that people really do know on an instinctual level even if they say publicly that they don’t, if you offered a fat person the chance to transform into normal weight, not one say no because of all of the benefits that they are missing out on which affects their quality of life more negatively than an extra 30 years in quantity.
equality of the sexes and other genetics traits is something that most people really don’t grasp on a logical level and i’m not sure that logic is the answer, its correct to go with shame as that is what people will respond to with better effect.
LikeLike
50 yrs ago America was mostly 85+% white. According to the CDC the rates of obesity is blacks> hispanics > whites > asians. Demographics have changed. Less whites more blacks and hispanics. So to say we are similar genetically to Americans back then is not a correct statement.
LikeLike
Correct.
That said, obesity rates within races have increased.
LikeLike
The “blame it on our genes” meme needs to die. You cannot blame our genes for expressing themselves in reaction to a change in environment that our culture engineered. If we suddenly destroyed the ozone layer, would we blame our genes for skin cancer?
LikeLike
Blame (something outside of my control) is hamster essence. The wellspring from which, rationalisations flow.
LikeLike
strong aware in this post
LikeLike
The easiest thing to be is a victim. Especially of yourself, because you have no one else to rationalize to. Just tell yourself what you want to hear, and VOILA!
In this case, it’s just crying victim to genes. Genes may have influence (my son can eat all day, literally, and is rail-thin, just like his father) but they are not the be-all, end-all. I’m shaped like every woman in my family and there’s not much I can do to change my shape but I DO have control over whether there’s a thick layer of fat over it or whether it’s comprised of more muscle or more fat.
So I make a choice to eat low-carb and hit the gym at least five days a week. Do I have other choices? Yes, and knowing that I have other choices to make and instead make the ones that benefit me keeps me from being a victim.
LikeLike
“I’m shaped like every woman in my family and there’s not much I can do to change my shape but I DO have control over whether there’s a thick layer of fat over it or whether it’s comprised of more muscle or more fat.”
Your genes heavily dictate your choices…
We don’t “control” our brains. Our brains control us. Never forget that…
LikeLike
… We don’t “control” our brains. Our brains control us. Never forget that……
with some people it is their stomach that controls them…
LikeLike
What is going on in this comment thread?!?
You can’t argue with regards! Don’t waste your breath on these trolls. A fatty will search the Internet all day and find a study that supports their current condition, and use it as justification for being a slob.
LikeLike
By the same, the socially retarded will search the internet all day and find a study that they believe justifies them in behaving like nagging ninnies.
Everyone has their scratch. At least fat is visible.
LikeLike
“Fat chicks need lovin’, too
‘cept they gotta pay.”
—-Quagmire
LikeLike
Additionally, laying obesity at the feet of bad eating in the US is a bad bet as well. We’ve always had our dietary habits. Alexis de Toqcueville documented it in the 1830s.
The difference is that American men and women used to, I don’t know, not sit on their asses all day. Work used to be tough. Even guys at the office had to leg it once in a while and they enjoyed these things called hobbies during their off-time which kept them on their feet. And women had the full time job of making sure the house didn’t go to hell by doing chores and rearing the kids.
My neighborhood friends as adults fall into two categories if you divide the fatties from the fit. Those of us with abs share this trait: every day our mothers would tell us to scram. For 2 hours we got banished from the house. Same with the other neighbor kids who are healthy adults today. The rest just sat on their couches and watched MTV and Comedy Central. (Also helped I grew up without cable)
LikeLike
Paleo or gtfo
LikeLike
Paleo is great ‘n all. But I like hotcakes, bread and donuts too much. I also enjoy being lean and muscular at the same time.
There are better diets.
LikeLike
There is no better diet than what humans evolved to eat.
And most people that say they are Paleo aren’t: real paleo is eating bone marrow, organs (liver) and just about anything else naturally edible. That stuff is loaded with awesome nutrients.
Eskimos are super healthy and eat nothing but animals. Almost all fat and protein. They’ll club a seal and start eating that fucker on the spot.
LikeLike
[Forget about ATrain…]
LikeLike
sobs uncontrollably
LikeLike
[…] unbearable chronic pain, horrible BO, involuntary celibacy, jeers, and malfunctioning reach-around …read more Source: Chateau […]
LikeLike
Some people have claimed that people are becoming fat because of genetics, but the proof lies more on the contrary to that, meaning that people are skinny because of good genetics. Taking into consideration that people eat between 10 to 20 times the amount of sugar that their ancestors did, EVERYONE should be fat not just Nicole and JayMan. One could call this the garbage disposal gene(heh) where the amount of sugars they consume does not have a large bearing on their body weight. This gene has to have increased for there to only be a 5-15% increase in fatties, even if it goes up to 30% accounting for changes in the baseline of what is fat.
It appears that people are staying skinny despite what they eat and how much they eat, and people are getting fatter despite the social stigma associated to it. The only thing that explains it all is mental illness. Some people are fat because they are crazy some people are skinny because they are crazy. But there is good news for all the fatties out there, they can be skinny, and with a few surgeries have no stretchmarks and extra skin. Course the long term solution is no sugars and a modest amount of exercise and everyone can be skinny. Though most are unwilling to make such a sacrifice…
LikeLike
“Some people have claimed that people are becoming fat because of genetics, but the proof lies more on the contrary to that, meaning that people are skinny because of good genetics.”
That makes sense to me too. That we live in a shit filled environment and the people that are skinny with no effort simply have good genetics. They are akin to naturals in Game who have success with women yet can’t explain it. However, don’t fall into the trap that JayMan uses and think that it’s excuse for non-naturals. They can learn ‘Food Game’ i.e don’t eat like shit and be thin.
The skinny naturals though come with a drawback. Since they never learned the proper way to be thin, they will most likely get fat when they get older and their body can’t take it anymore. They then blame this on ‘metabolism’ and just are content with you can’t escape being fat because you age.
What’s the really easy solution to this problem? Simply don’t eat crap junk food. Isn’t it simple common sense that diet in meat, fruits and veggies is the right way to go? My grandmom knew and told me that. When in doubt simply look to the past when things were functioning and then copy that and then adjust for modern day.
LikeLike
I’ve lost 45 pounds (and counting) since July of last year by going back to the basics – counting calories and exercise. I actually keep an online food diary to make it simple. So I would say, yes, I agree that it absolutely is within your control. During this process I’ve reflected quite a bit on obesity and my own history with yo-yo dieting.
My thought is this: there is no connection anymore between calories in food and satiety. If you drink a lot of sweetened coffees or sodas, you can easily meet your calorie limit for the day (or close) without having eaten any actual food at all. If you eat a lot of snack/junk food – well, let’s just say I was shocked to find out there are 300 calories in a serving of my favorite potato chips, and a serving size is only TEN chips. That’s all of 2 mouthfuls.
When you eat “real” food, it’s interesting to note that I can eat large amounts of fruits and vegetables until I feel satisfied and no longer hungry, but the calories in those foods (vegetables in particular) are low enough that I can do that without coming close to my daily limit. If eating lean meat or fats such as butter or olive oil, the fat and protein are very satisfying and it’s actually hard to overeat on them, especially the fats. If you eat real food, in some ways it becomes intuitive to not overeat. Most junk food, which I still eat occasionally, is just not worth the calories since I’ll be just as hungry after I eat it as before.
Obviously exercise matters but I think food is the problem – not having any idea how much one needs to eat or what foods to eat to GET FULL but not FAT. Going back to the potato chips I love – so if I eat 20 chips and 600 calories and then go jog for 40 minutes, I will not have even burned enough calories to make up for those chips which haven’t made a dent in my hunger. The jogging is great for lots of reasons but not eating the chips is a lot simpler for weight loss or weight control, than trying to out-exercise a poor diet. I figured out I was eating close to 3000 cals a day before I started trying to fix it last summer and I was maintaining at that level. Almost half those calories were in liquid sugar form, ugh. I’m currently at 1600 calories a day, still losing, and feeling great.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
I know I’ve made this comment before, but I read somewhere that we lose our appetite when we’ve received the proper nutrients, not a certain number of calories.
LikeLike
That very well may be true. But calories is just a term for energy and if you take in more than you use, over time you will store the extra as fat on your body. Use more than you take in and you will lose weight. Unless there’s some underlying medical condition, this is going to work 99% of the time if a person will bother to pay attention to what they’re eating. If someone goes vegan, paleo, Atkins, whatever, they’re still losing because of the change in calories as compared to their total daily energy expenditure.
If someone can stick to paleo or Atkins or whatever long-term, I say more power to them. I know from past experience that any eating plan that eliminates or forbids certain foods is not going to be sustainable for me. Knowing where I need to be (as far as calories) has made me choose healthier options because of the hunger/satisfaction issue. Maybe it’s all about nutrients, I couldn’t say. But I tend to think it has more to do with volume (small volume chips-high calories vs high volume vegetable plate-low calories). And that’s where it’s no longer ‘intuitive’ where stopping when full allows you to maintain your weight.
I just find it easier to live in the real world if I can eat pretty much whatever I want and stay within a calorie target as far as weight loss alone is concerned. Optimum health would be a different discussion, of course.
On the other hand, plenty of obese people are also malnourished so I can see your point – that they (formerly me) just keep eating and feeling hungry because they’ve only consumed empty calories.
LikeLike
It would explain why some women have “cravings” during pregnancy- not to be confused with “desire” to eat. The craving would be the body’s way of alerting you to the fact that you need something specific.
LikeLike
I eat a LOT of protein. It’s not uncommon for me to eat a eight oz to a pound of grilled tilapia or chicken. But that’s all I will eat almost all day. If I can’t get to that, I have a very high-protein shake (about 60g) and not eat again for almost a whole day. I don’t eat three meals a day; I can’t because my food is so protein-dense that were I to, I would get nauseous. Nevermind the fact that I would just not be hungry. If I get stuck out somewhere and don’t have access to high-protein foods, I get ravenous. Nothing satisfies me until I can get to lean protein. I also don’t eat until I am actually HUNGRY, as in stomach growling, not just ‘something smells good so now I want to eat’ hungry.
1200 calories a day. 1200 calories a day of good, high-quality food is almost too much to eat. I had someone bitch to me that they couldn’t eat only 1200 calories and have enough, so I wrote a simple menu for a day that came out to be just under and was an amazing amount of food compared to 1200 calories of crap. Needless to say, I never heard that argument again.
Huge salad with leafy greens, grilled chicken or shrimp, a boiled egg, a sprinkle of cheese, some random veggies, the correct amount of good dressing… You could eat two of those a day, get every bit of nutrition you need and still maintain that 1200 calories. You’d probably still have room for an apple or a pear as a snack… if you can get it down since you’ll be so full.
LikeLike
This was covered on the tv show Green Wing:
LikeLike
On the subject of obesity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/the-nu-project-nude-photos_n_2727320.html
http://thenuproject.com
What are the motives of photographer Blum? Perhaps he is sincere is his quest to “inspire the women…to feel better about their own bodies.” The visual arts’ answer to Hugo S?
Thoughts on what kind of women do this? BDF’s for sure. There are many “propeller scarred manatees” (to use the language of The Proprietor) on the nu website. The difference between the women of North America and the women of South America is striking. The fat epidemic clearly hasn’t saturated the self-selected sample of South American women as it has the North American women.
LikeLike
I didn’t read all the comments but had to react to this.
“You need willpower. And a healthy dose of shame and realistic self-appraisal. If you think these things are impossible, just recall that a mere fifty years ago most people in America were thin, and they weren’t genetically dissimilar from you. They managed the willpower and shame. So can you.”
The poorest meaning the least educated are usually the fatest. How can you expect to eat well when you don’t know anything about nutrition or just don’t have the money to buy good products ?
The food industry is exploiting our natural crave for fat and sugary food.
Then you have the genetic component. Colored people are much more likely to have diabetes than Caucasian. Same if your parents are fat.
Then you have mental health. Many are in a bad situation simply because of life accident and just plain bad luck and will compensate with food.
And so on ..
Fifty years ago the food industry was only getting started. The availability of unheathy food was nowhere near the actual level. Now saturated fat is everywhere, corn syrup as well. And let’s not forget advertising.
You just can’t compare. Obesity is a very complex problem.
The industry needs to be regulated and nutrition lessons given to every parents on top of free group exercises for all. But we all know it’s never going to happen because politics are dominated by lobbies.
LikeLike
More government is not the answer. Just a different kind of problem.
LikeLike
[…] How government and society made us fat. Related. Science: Fat people don’t live longer. […]
LikeLike
if you eat a high sugar diet at a deficit for instance, say 1800 calories a day, your body will be sugar adapted, when your body corrects it’s deficit, it will be looking primarily to correct it’s deficit with glucose. The body can produce it’s own glucose….the problem is that the favoured reaction in the body is to convert amino acids into glucose, and thats LEAN BODY MASS BABY. Hence why bodybuilders usually eat high protein when cutting and/or lower carb diets. They need excess amino acids in the system to prevent muscle breakdown, this and some degree of fat burning adaptation. Your body doesn’t care if it burns fat or muscle or even organ tissue if it comes to it, and seeing as muscle mass burns more calories, it makes sense that your body will utilise it when in a prolonged deficit. Bottom line is that weight loss does not equal fat loss, energy levels and body composition will be different with different diets at the same calorie intake.
LikeLike
calorie in calorie out people are just roughly correct, but some people are concerned with getting things VERY right. if you eat a high sugar diet at a deficit for instance, say 1800 calories a day, your body will be sugar adapted, when your body corrects it’s deficit, it will be looking primarily to correct it’s deficit with glucose. The body can produce it’s own glucose….the problem is that the favoured reaction in the body is to convert amino acids into glucose, and thats LEAN BODY MASS BABY. Hence why bodybuilders usually eat high protein when cutting and/or lower carb diets. They need excess amino acids in the system to prevent muscle breakdown, this and some degree of fat burning adaptation. Your body doesn’t care if it burns fat or muscle or even organ tissue if it comes to it, and seeing as muscle mass burns more calories, it makes sense that your body will utilise it when in a prolonged deficit. Bottom line is that weight loss does not equal fat loss, energy levels and body composition will be different with different diets at the same calorie intake.
LikeLike
a calorie is a calorie, yes?
is that why you wither away and die if you don’t eat any protein, or fat for that matter? But no such thing with sugar or carbs?
LikeLike
You are right
I made a somewhat similar argument by asking if anyone could find me a man who got to weigh 500 pounds by eating lettuce only
that man does not exist because a calorie is not a calorie
LikeLike
C H, listen and listen carefully:
The world , , , wants you to be fat nowadays. That is the problem
LikeLike