The ultimate issue is "is it a choice?" Homosexuality is not considered a "choice" and thus is not considered "fair game" for criticism. Similarly a lot of data is showing that metabolic set points are not a "choice" or at least they're determined at a young age. Granted, you could starve yourself and exercise into losing weight, but the success rates long term are very low. People who try generally get depressed because they are forcing their body to operate in a way it doesn't want to simply to conform to social norms. The parallels with homosexuality continue. I mean, gay people could act straight. They just don't want to. Further, there is little data to suggest health issues associated with weight once you control for other lifestyle choices (exercise, diet, smoking, etc). Many people exercise everyday, eat a healthy diet, lead healthy lives, and are just fat. Honestly, it's the last bastion of socially accepted prejudice.

This is all good info, but he misses a couple of big ones:

- Eating smaller portions 6x a day (rather than 3x): You still have to control your overall caloric intake, but spacing out your food consumption keeps you in a thermic digestive state (which burns calories) during more of your waking hours and over time has an effect on the portion you eat to feel "full".

- Tearing/Repairing Muscle: weightlifting and the associated cycle of tearing and repairing your muscle tissue burns a ton of calories. For people over the age of 35, this extra boost is nearly always necessary to counteract slowing metabolism and assist effective fat burning.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

I completely understand that it's tough once you get there. Like you say, strenuous exercise can be very difficult and you can easily injure yourself pushing it too hard. Walking is still good though, it doesn't take a lot to ramp up the metabolism a bit.
I disagree, willpower is something you can switch on. No one quits smoking until they decide to. If you truly want to lose weight, count calories. Set a limit at whatever, say 2,000 cal/day. Then stop when you get there. Anyone CAN do it, if they want to bad enough. I just don't buy fatalistic attitudes. It's hard, it's not easy, it's not comfortable, but anyone CAN do it.


Yeah, like the only times I've succeeded in dropping loads of weight is when there has been a good reason for it, for instance I'll be getting married in the next couple of years and I have zero intention of being a fat bride so I'm not even worried about it because I know it's possible and much easier with the right motivation. The problem is for most of us who lose weight is once you get to where you want to be, it's SO easy to fall off the wagon and it's almost like every time you do it, you lose some respect for yourself and you just make it harder the next time, because you're fully aware of how difficult it was to achieve in the first place. Sigh... all I'm saying is it's not as simple as people seem quick to make it out to be. But anyone who says they can't is just lying to themselves and I find it just as pathetic as you clearly do.

I completely understand that it's tough once you get there. Like you say, strenuous exercise can be very difficult and you can easily injure yourself pushing it too hard. Walking is still good though, it doesn't take a lot to ramp up the metabolism a bit.
I disagree, willpower is something you can switch on. No one quits smoking until they decide to. If you truly want to lose weight, count calories. Set a limit at whatever, say 2,000 cal/day. Then stop when you get there. Anyone CAN do it, if they want to bad enough. I just don't buy fatalistic attitudes. It's hard, it's not easy, it's not comfortable, but anyone CAN do it.

To a large extent, no pun intended, obese people want to find out why they are a "victim" of obesity. The explosion of obesity, especially in the USA, is rather easily explained if you use some common sense. What has evolution designed us for, in terms of our metabolism? Humans have had to work for what they eat, and that food has always been relatively unprocessed and calorie deficient. Now we are sedentary, programmed to eat a certain amount until we feel "full" and that food is VERY calorie dense. Presto, an epidemic of obesity. I mean really, is it that hard to understand? Yes, some people are more prone to become obese. We all know people with a "hollow leg" that seem to eat incredible amounts of food, and yet they don't get obese. So, your body type does influence it.
I'm all for science that makes it easier to lose weight. We know people have a hard time fighting their compulsions, whether it be tobacco, alcohol, drugs, or food. But, all those things are choices. A cheeseburger doesn't just jump down your throat. There is no "I can't lose weight." Yes you can, if your willpower is greater than your compulsion, and if you go back to the habits that evolution designed you for. One reason obesity rates are greater in the US is the average person's caloric expenditure is less here. Americans walk about 1/3 as much distance per year as compared to Europeans. American cities are sprawling and walking is not an efficient means of getting stuff done. Plus, there are now scooters in every Walmart now, so the obese can walk even less.
I do strenuous exercise several times a week and I try to eat reasonably. Frankly, I don't like exercise that much. I don't get any "high" from it. But I know it's good for me, actually, THE MOST important thing I can do to benefit my health. It's a choice. Everyone has choice, except I guess the kids that grow up in homes where parents ply them with calorie dense foods. The parents don't have to, but they do. Every time they go to the grocery, they have choice. The pop tarts don't jump off the shelve and into their carts.
I just get tired of the "victim" mentality, that's more prominent in the US than anywhere I know.

In 5 years, when the metabolism takes a hit, they will all be houses.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..


So, by this argument, if we live in a deist universe, in which the universe was created but the creator pays it no mind, then abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are completely plausible. That's an interesting position, it does not really help you here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

You seem to not understand the meaning of apriori. A few hundred years ago everybody in the western world, at least claimed to, believe the creation myth of genesis. We got to here from there, don't pretend your ideology has not had a chance, you were in charge of the game, we called your bluff, you just had nothing in your hand, you still don't.

Evolving molecules exist, they came into being at some point after it was possible for them to exist in this universe. The only non-magic hypotheses we have are based on a naturalistic model where these molecules are generated by a series of non-evolving processes. The gaps in the chemical record are very much like the gaps in the fossil record used to be, we have not filled them all, but neither have we found one that can not be crossed, and no reason to think they will not be filled.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Here is the hypothesis


The ID position is stated there in four parts, the last three follow from common decent, and the first one is either false, like all Behe's examples, or undemonstrated. It is mathematically possible that there is irreducible complexity somewhere, just as with faeries and unicorns, absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.

All the Discovery Institute links were painful in their fail. DI is a propaganda organization, only one of their links discusses any scientific discovery, and it actually makes no ID claims. The rest of the articles either make no claim, or have been shown to be false. If Well's article is going to be your flagship falsifiable ID position, fine, but you should probably know it's already been falsified here .

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here.

This is your premise, and your conclusion, draw the line, and I will show you something on either side that confounds your "distinction". If you can't define the problem, I can't show it's flaws. Refusing to define your terms may get you by in theology, we are talking chemistry here, chemistry does not "work in mysterious ways".

>> ^shinyblurry:

if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not.

Ontology can't help you here, gods, since the can intervene, make it more difficult to make truth claims, not easier.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof.

There is no proof of anything. There is evidence of RNA/DNA metabolism, there is evidence of general chemical probability, there is no evidence for irreducible complexity, or anticipatory design in any non lab built genome. You can scream about nonexistent, and unneeded proof all day, science follows the evidence.

Personally I find it hard to reconcile what I know about physics with the existence of consciousness to begin with. Perhaps a better thought question would be something along the lines of Chalmers' zombie world arguments. That is, could a person appear outwardly to perceive and act in the world normally and not be conscious? That is, could they just be some sort of robot, or cascade of known biochemical processes? Alan Turing, in his own way, was interested in the same question.

Therein lies the problem. If there is no satisfactory physical test for consciousness, how can we be so sure about how consciousness is anchored to matter? Frankly, I see little hope of unifying an understanding of consciousness with an understanding of physics without invoking quantum mechanics. Even that just feels like punting to the physics equivalent of magic.

Personally I'm on the lunatic fringe with consciousness. I can't derive consciousness, but I'm overwhelmingly convinced of its existence. So, instead of dealing with all the paradoxes I just assume consciousness is present in all matter. There are varying experiences, or "degrees" of consciousness however. The nice entropy reducing capabilities of our nervous system make our particular conscious experience substantially richer than that of, for example, a rock. So I guess my thought is that the experience sort of fades towards the experience the matter would have without the metabolic energy necessary to support neuronal conduction. Honestly, I don't think it would be possible to obtain data on it, but I imagine it to be somewhat like fading to gray. I suppose it would be equally likely to be like fading into chaos.

There's a GURPS advantage called Sanitized Metabolism, which reads:

"You are totally clean. Your native intestinal enzymes and symbiotic bacteria eliminate your body odor and make efficient use of food and drink, leaving minimal, sanitized waste products. You never suffer from bad breath, excessive perspiration or unsightly skin problems."

Always wished I could put that on my RL character sheet.


That said, there's a strict hierarchy of super powers:

Level 1, God:
Omnipotence
Batman

Level 2, Cosmic:
'Omnipotence'
'Reality' Manipulation
Time Manipulation

Level 3, Rule the World:
Mind Control
'Luck' Manipulation
Kill Anyone
Speed
Magic
Genius
Hyper-Technology

Level 4, Super:
'Luck'
Invulnerability
Healing Factor
Insubstantiality
Invisibility
Teleportation
Telekinesis
etc.

Level 5, Overrated:
Ninja
Flight
Eye Beams
Strength
etc.

Level 6, Worthless:
Aquaman


I spend a lot of time thinking about this.

On 16 May 2008, the CAS reversed the IAAF's ban, clearing the way for Pistorius to try and qualify for the Olympics. In its decision, it held that there was insufficient evidence that Pistorius's prosthetics provided any metabolic advantage over other runners.

A major component of the Court's decision was that the prosthetics do not provide an overall advantage to Pistorius in comparison to other runners, when their disadvantages are taken into account. It concluded the IAAF decision did not adequately consider all the various advantages and disadvantages over the course of the entire race, such as Pistorius's slower starts. However, the CAS panel stressed their verdict only applied to the specific case at hand, and that the IAAF might in the future be able to prove the existence of such an advantage, with advances in scientific knowledge and tests designed and carried out to the satisfaction of Pistorius and the IAAF.[43]

In response to the announcement, Pistorius said: "My focus throughout this appeal has been to ensure that disabled athletes be given the chance to compete and compete fairly with able-bodied athletes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius#Dispute_over_prosthetics

On the last point, I don't think he attacks putting calories on the menu as much as he has distaste for government control for what we eat and the government forcing fast food restaurant's hands in providing healthy choices.>> ^longde:

Interesting movie. I've watched an hour of it, and while it makes a couple of good points, I'd say it suffers from the same problems it tags "supersize me" with: erecting strawmen, and ignoring the common sense. In fact, this film has probably more inconsistencies and falacies than "supersize me".
Also, there are alot of hokey moments that draw out the film that could have been left in the editing room.
A few items that lead me to the above:
1) He goes on for a while about how the foods the SuperSizeMe Guy ate could not possibly not have added up to 5000, and he could not have gained 25 pounds. Hmmmm, somewhat convincing. But THEN in the movie, he takes pains to show how the traditional Calories In/Calories Out formula isn't legitimate because of hormones. So, given that, I can see how someone could eat alot of carb rich fast foods, raise their insulin levels, lower their metabolism and gain 25 pounds in a month.
2) He makes a big point about how he could not get the food diary from the SSMG production company; but how long ago was that movie made? Why would they keep all the documentation from the film for so long? Especially in the SSM film, we see half the time what SSMG is eating, and can infer the rest from the simple rules he set.
3) Lastly, and most importantly, this guy, who has a body composistion of 30% fat, wants to downplay that Americans are fatter and more out of shape in history and compared to the rest of the world, and that this is indeed a problem. He says that fat people will live as long as in shape people, but what about quality of life in old age? ANYONE can live to be a hundred given technology, but I want to be in the number that can walk and think independently.
Also, as someone who travels globally frequently, I can say that Americans really are FAT, relatively. Our food portions are huge compared to what other people eat, we walk (vs. driving) alot less, and our body sizes are noticably larger. Thus I think that putting calories on big macs and on menus is a great idea (the film attacks this idea). Let people make choices with all the facts in front of them. That is what real choice is about.

Interesting movie. I've watched an hour of it, and while it makes a couple of good points, I'd say it suffers from the same problems it tags "supersize me" with: erecting strawmen, and ignoring the common sense. In fact, this film has probably more inconsistencies and falacies than "supersize me".

Also, there are alot of hokey moments that draw out the film that could have been left in the editing room.

A few items that lead me to the above:

1) He goes on for a while about how the foods the SuperSizeMe Guy ate could not possibly not have added up to 5000, and he could not have gained 25 pounds. Hmmmm, somewhat convincing. But THEN in the movie, he takes pains to show how the traditional Calories In/Calories Out formula isn't legitimate because of hormones. So, given that, I can see how someone could eat alot of carb rich fast foods, raise their insulin levels, lower their metabolism and gain 25 pounds in a month.

2) He makes a big point about how he could not get the food diary from the SSMG production company; but how long ago was that movie made? Why would they keep all the documentation from the film for so long? Especially in the SSM film, we see half the time what SSMG is eating, and can infer the rest from the simple rules he set.

3) Lastly, and most importantly, this guy, who has a body composistion of 30% fat, wants to downplay that Americans are fatter and more out of shape in history and compared to the rest of the world, and that this is indeed a problem. He says that fat people will live as long as in shape people, but what about quality of life in old age? ANYONE can live to be a hundred given technology, but I want to be in the number that can walk and think independently.

Also, as someone who travels globally frequently, I can say that Americans really are FAT, relatively. Our food portions are huge compared to what other people eat, we walk (vs. driving) alot less, and our body sizes are noticably larger. Thus I think that putting calories on big macs and on menus is a great idea (the film attacks this idea). Let people make choices with all the facts in front of them. That is what real choice is about.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^gwiz665:
Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.

As someone who is currently (perennially) trying to lose weight, I wish it was something as simple as running around the block a few times. I trained for a marathon two years ago and simply stopped losing weight during the process. I remained 30 lbs above my goal weight, and ran (and finished) the marathon like that. For people who are not naturally lean, it is the difficult (near impossible) combination of proper exercise with proper diet that causes them to often simply give up. It also an unhappy truth that the cheapest food is the least healthy, so poor people are much more likely to be malnourished into obesity.
As to the video, in this particular case, laughing is totally appropriate. But when it's a fat person by themselves, I am usually just saddened. And I always remember that phrase, "Are you riding a scooter because you're fat, or fat because you are riding a scooter?"


As polarizing as Nutrition Science is, (Whatever the fuck that means), there are three keys to losing weight. Diet, Weightlifting (or whatever muscle working exercise you do), and Cardio.

I'm not a PHD in whatever Nutritionists get PHDs in. But I do know that the best way to burn fat, over time, is getting you're Basal Rate Metabolism up. The best way to do that is to eat less more often.

The next best thing is to work the large muscle groups on your body. You don't have to be a body builder, but you want those muscles to work.

The last important thing on the fat burning trifecta is cardio. 20 minutes a day, or 30 minutes a day depending on what kind of cardio you do. I skip a day because of high impact running, and lifting.

The last thing you should always remember? You won't lose 20 pounds in a period of 2 weeks. You probably won't lose 5 pounds in a week. I went from about 270 to 255 in a year; with just cardio (boxing and running). I went from 255 to 243 in 3 months with diet, weight lifting, and cardio.

The trick is to cut all the excess fat. Then when it starts to get hard to lose weight you know you're actually making progress.

The reason you didn't lose weight when training for a marathon is because you were training for a marathon, not to lose weight. What I mean to say is that, most likely, you're body was storing up energy for the marathon.

In short three things: Diet, (Not going on a diet, but how and what you eat), Muscle Exercise, and Cardio.

>> ^rottenseed:

I just watched "Fat Head" a response to "Super-size Me". It contained a lot of appealing facts that I will never bother to fact check. If you, too, are mentally lazy like me, you should watch it. It's low-budget but it's amusing.>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^gwiz665:
Jebus christ. I mean, seriously, they should have layed off the big macs back in school. America, you need to run your ass around the block a few times.

As someone who is currently (perennially) trying to lose weight, I wish it was something as simple as running around the block a few times. I trained for a marathon two years ago and simply stopped losing weight during the process. I remained 30 lbs above my goal weight, and ran (and finished) the marathon like that. For people who are not naturally lean, it is the difficult (near impossible) combination of proper exercise with proper diet that causes them to often simply give up. It also an unhappy truth that the cheapest food is the least healthy, so poor people are much more likely to be malnourished into obesity.
As to the video, in this particular case, laughing is totally appropriate. But when it's a fat person by themselves, I am usually just saddened. And I always remember that phrase, "Are you riding a scooter because you're fat, or fat because you are riding a scooter?"



I've read about "Fat Head" and it makes a compelling argument. It is theoretically possible to have a healthy weight while eating crappy food. However, we shouldn't be looking at what a single person can accomplish while on a mission to debunk a fear-mongering documentary. We should be looking at the statistics of the category of people who are obese: what is caused their obesity and what is preventing them from losing the fat?

I have no specifics to back up my current opinion. It is a position I have decided upon after many years of personal experience and reading a wide variety of books on getting in shape. It is my belief that the core ingredients of fast food are simple carbohydrates and saturated fats. These ingredients have a 1-2 punch on the metabolism, spiking the insulin response which pushes calories into formation of fat, then crashing the insulin response making the body feel hungry again. Riding this cycle over the long term creates larger and larger appetites, encouraging the consumer to purchase more and more food. Bad for the body, but good for the restaurants. Protein can help reduce the insulin spike, but fast food usually comes with very fatty protein, so that's not much of a help. And vegetables aren't very tasty, so they are easily overlooked.

What I'm saying is that people who are overweight are trapped in a cycle they don't understand, and even if they do understand it, it is very hard to break out. It is literally an addiction like smoking, except you can't quit cold turkey (pun not intended). You can't stop eating. You have to keep eating, but choosing foods you don't enjoy because your habits have been warped by the cheap food industry.

I don't think we should legislate. I'll be the first to stand up and say don't blame McDonald's for your weight problem (even though it's kinda their fault). I'm saying we need to educate. And make that education based on clinical studies, not lobbyist funding like the USDA's myplate program. Teach people the proper balance of protein, carbs, and fat. Teach them the proper forms those nutrients should come in (lean and whole, not processed and sugary). Teach them the benefits of vegetables. This information has got to be in our faces so that we can't ignore it.

But even if we do that, this generation is a lost cause. I work my ass off to get in shape, but I keep falling off the wagon because the craving for fast food gets to be too much. That "high" from a sugary insulin spike calls to me. I'm not kidding that it's an addiction. We need to teach people that, so that kids and parents can keep away and not get hooked.

>> ^vaire2ube:

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...
Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...
Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.
It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".

. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."
Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."

Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.

Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.


There is not a scientific consensus about whether HFCS is worse than cane sugar. That Priceton paper is making big waves, but there are contrary viewpoints.

Reddit's AskScience forum had this discussion, which involves several relevant scientists:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/djo8a/whats_the_deal_with_hfcs_vs_real_sugar/