Stop Obsessing Over This If You Want To Lose Weight has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Stop-Obsessing-Over-This-If-You-Want-To-Lose-Weight

Stop Obsessing Over This If You Want To Lose Weight has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea.

Stop Obsessing Over This If You Want To Lose Weight has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

Stop Obsessing Over This If You Want To Lose Weight has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

Lived in Ontario (28 years), Brisbane, Australia (5 years), Alberta (7 years), and now Texas (14 years).

Agree with pretty much with Boneremake on Alberta, gets more points than Ontario. My Australian experience was good, in both the city and rural (blew an eardrum due to infection in Longreach QLD at Xmas... the doctor was drunk when they wheeled him into emerg, but he was a gentle, caring drunk).

Small things in Ontario are manageable - anything requiring stuff beyond typical emergency room patching up in more rural locations (my definition - anywhere far enough from Toronto that you can't see the nighttime glow, so north of Newfenmarket sort of) is quite lacking (v. long wait times for things like weekly dialysis, MRI, even open MRI, GI tract scoping, ultrasounds, contrast X-rays etc). Parental unit #1 with diabetes requiring 3 times a week dialysis almost snuffed it as there were only 4 chairs in the unit 14 miles from home, got on the list and had to wait for someone to die before getting on the team. Finally snuffed it when they shut down these 4 chairs and the new unit was now a 90 mile round trip 3 times a week for man who could barely walk or see. Died from exhaustion, not diabetes. 2nd parental unit needs an MRI for some serious GI issues, can't keep food down, losing weight rapidly. Wait 4.5 months and we'll see if we can get you in. I'm having her measured for the box.

Having said that, the situation is easier to describe in Texas, the land of excess (excessive wealth and excessive poverty).

Good health insurance plan, preferably through employer with lots of employees = wait times for advanced procedures measured usually in minutes or hours, sometimes days, but not weeks or months. You get taken care of, and your birthing room at the local maternity ward looks like the Marriott (just Couryard though, so no mini-bar or microwave).

Mediocre or no health insurance plan = pray you never get sick enough to require more than what you can buy at the CVS or splint up by watching do-it-yourself first aid videos on youtube, because an unplanned night in the hospital or a trip to emerg in the short bus with swirly lights followed by admission can, for many, wipe them out or sure eat up Bobby's college fund. No exaggeration. I have insurance, but for a reference point, one night in hospital (elective) for a turbinectomy (google it people) including jello and ice cream came in at $14,635. Yes, one night. 24 hours. Do the math. An emergency room visit for a forearm cut requiring 13 stitches (and I didn't even bleed on their white sheets - just cut through the skin to the fat tissue) was billed at $2,300 bucks. Our new baby tried to exit the meatbag as a footling breach, so emergency C-sectioned him out, and one extra night in hospital (2 in total) - all up, billed at just shy of $24K. We now have 3 full service hospitals within 5 miles of our house, and a full service children's hospital in the same radius. And they just started building another. Somebody's making money. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance is shitty (huge deductibles, huge copays) you will eat much of these types of costs. Rule: cheaper to die than get sick.

Ontario and AB might have longer wait times, but even an 83 year old woman in a rural Ontario village with no pension, insurance, income or large stacks of cash can (eventually) get the health care she needs without spending unjustifiable amounts of money. Happy birthday mom.

My 2¢

@JiggaJonson

You may not have said that people lack self-control, but the article you posted indicated as much; that when it comes to food portions, people have difficulty curbing their appetites, and it's simply not true -- and it's seems like a facile excuse for not taking responsibility for oneself.

No one I know who actually wants to lose weight "eats less and exercises" (and I would add "eat healthfully" to that, as well). In fact, I don't know anyone who eats healthfully and exercises regularly and appropriately who is "overweight." (If you know anyone, feel free to put them in touch with me.)

I don't want to get all technical here, but obviously someone who has moldy intestines, "leaky gut," fatty liver, and the resulting blood sugar imbalances may have a difficult time losing weight. And, by no means do I think eating McDonald's is a good idea for any health-conscious person, but individuals need to take some responsibility for educating themselves about their own health. This isn't McDonalds' responsibility.

And yeah, the low fat craze was a bad idea (as I frequently pointed out to many in the 90's), but that's what you get when you trust certain "authorities" to tell you what to do and how to live (especially when it comes from the government and its cronies at the AMA).

If you eat healthfully, your body will tell you when to eat and when to stop. Only a messed up metabolism encourages overeating. For example, the insulin-adrenailne roller-coaster will, of course, have an effect on a person's capacities for immediate self-control. This is why people who binge tend to do so on sweets, wheat, and other no-so-great "foods." Do you know anyone who binges on broccoli? I do not.

So I agree that you need knowledge of what to eat, and this is something that often varies from person to person as we all have different biochemistries, but there are common elements to what more likely agrees with most everyone's health.

(Disclaimer: I am not giving medical advice here, as I have not been licensed by the medical "authorities" to misinform you, but in case you want to know more about the reasons for obesity, I encourage you to check this out for more information: http://www.majidali.com/the1.htm)

I think his point was to try to surprise people by riding on the wake of Super Size Me and using a attention-grabbing headline like "Eat Only McDonald's and Lose Weight!"

My point had nothing to do with whether it was better for your diet etc. etc. My only point was: Yes, of course it's possible to lose weight and eat [only] at McDonald's. That's not surprising at all.

If your body uses more calories than it takes in, regardless of what kind of calories they are, you will lose weight. You could eat only candy or maple syrup + cayenne pepper + lemon juice or pumpkin pie every day and still lose weight, but those results shouldn't "surprise" anyone.

He intentionally mislead people by making them think he ate a "normal" adult's food choices at McDonald's and lost weight, but he severely restricted his diet (and added extra exercise) to forcibly yield his intended results [and grasp at straws for his 15 minutes of fame].

@budzos
@lucky760
@Truckchase

It wasn't a clinical study, I think the point was merely to show that it was possible for a overweight, borderline obese man to eat only MCD menu items, be satiated and maintain the calorific deficit needed to gradually lose weight, provided basic exercise was maintained.

I don't think the point was to stress that changing to MCD made his diet better (in that case adding exercise is obviously cheating), just to show that it is possible to lose weight and eat MCD.

Taking this as a reference for calorie burned:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm

45 mins walking is about 300 calories burned. Considering that teaching is primarily a pretty sedentary job (outside of class), that's only freeing up an extra 15% of your roughly daily intake needs of 2000 calories.

Not huge. I think the main takeaway here is, junk food or not, if your goal is losing weight (ignoring long term health complications), then it's all about portion control.

@JiggaJonson

As above, I think this is the main issue. I usually want half the portion that take away food outlets offer. Pricing structure then distorts the cost of the smallest size to make the larger 'value meal' much more attractive. One reason why I tend to prefer sashimi eat outs.

You're always going to lose weight if your caloric intake is lower than the calories you burn every day, regardless of what you eat.

These results are not at all surprising.

Don't forget that the train uses less energy if the passengers lose weight.

I wish the old had some common sense the young possesses. It seems to me bob that we just gravitate towards a different common sense, not a better. We become jaded and wiser.

Another fun fact, the older one gets the less right they get, past their 30s. This is because we stop caring about petty shit like the war on pot, women's right to choose and such. We get "wiser" as you say and stop frothing every time someone brings it up. (The only reason the elderly are more conservative than the young is that they come from an era that was more conservative. I am just pointing out that they lose it as they go, even if they have more of it to go with. Like heavy set people losing weight.)

host is losing weight

I actually had to think about this one 'cos my intention is to lose weight. To do this will mean two changes, namely "eat less" & exercise (a.k.a. "get out more"). As the exercise part requires more effort, getting out more is what I voted for.

Hmmm..... I won't say anything for now, but this post has actually got me thinking.