>> ^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.

thank you for proving yourself an idiot without my help.

Here's something that those 20 years of experience may not have taught you... Race Track not the same as an open public road. So obviously I have no problem with motorsports. I do have a problem with street racers though. They're a bunch of fucking nitwits.




>> ^antonye:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Of course... OF COURSE. Because we all know accidents only happen in bad roads, with bad visibility, and when it's raining.
And the rest of your comment is filled with such inane bullshit, I'm not even gonna take the time to talk about it, since you are obviously a lost cause.
By your logic, all motorsports should be banned because they drive/ride too fast?
After all, they're speeding too so it can't be safe, right?
Here's 10p; go buy yourself a clue and come back when you have a real argument.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Of course... OF COURSE. Because we all know accidents only happen in bad roads, with bad visibility, and when it's raining.
And the rest of your comment is filled with such inane bullshit, I'm not even gonna take the time to talk about it, since you are obviously a lost cause.

By your logic, all motorsports should be banned because they drive/ride too fast?
After all, they're speeding too so it can't be safe, right?

Here's 10p; go buy yourself a clue and come back when you have a real argument.

Of course... OF COURSE. Because we all know accidents only happen in bad roads, with bad visibility, and when it's raining.

And the rest of your comment is filled with such inane bullshit, I'm not even gonna take the time to talk about it, since you are obviously a lost cause.




>> ^antonye:

>> ^EMPIRE:
Apparently you forgot how to read, because I clearly don't say that I wish him dead. I wish his bike was really so fucked up he would never ride it again. You think doing 85 on a country road is ok? And then I'm the troll....
Speed safety is relative to the conditions.
As a motorcycle rider for over 20 years, and a racer for 5 of those, there was nothing that would have stopped me doing 100+ on the roads that he was on - dead straight with great visibility, dry road and good surface condition.
Maybe you're the one that needs more lessons?
Also, the guy had a serious accident and didn't run out of road and crash, hit an oncoming car and crash, or just fall off and crash. To me that justifies his speed.
Also, if he'd have been going FASTER he'd have missed the deer anyway - surely that's safer too?
And finally, upvote for the 998R @ 5:40

Peer pressure has little to do with it. The reason why it won't be effective if shown in high schools is that teen drivers are well aware of the consequences of 'aggressive driving'. What they're terrible at is assessing risk, the likelihood that THIS TIME there will be a pedestrian there when they pass on the right. Given time, their prefrontal cortex will mature, and experience will temper the notion that every moment is a novel opportunity where anything can happen. Sadly, the brains of some adolescents will never mature sufficiently, usually due to stress in the environment. That's all the thoughtless asshole drivers out in the road today. The problem is that if these commercials (the ones that are PSAs) are aimed at them, it's a lost cause. They can't see that any of this applies to them. Then they run out to play the lottery.

I did have a friend who walked away from a roll-over crash that crossed the median of the highway and four lanes on the other side. His advice to me (a novice driver at age 24) was that most people, when they sense a collision is imminent, jam on the brakes. This is, as you can imagine, a terrible idea for a number of reason. With a smile he said, "Just go faster. When THEY jam on THEIR brakes, you'll be surprised what options the laws of physics close for them, and open for you."

You give the impression that you believe your own personal politics are somehow above partisanship. I think it is linked with your inability to see your own thinking as subjective. I believe Ayn Rand had the same problem when she titled her movement 'objectivism'.

As far as 'liberty' goes, haven't we discussed this ad nauseum? You believe in 'free market' liberty. I believe in 'democracy' liberty. I see the free market as intrusive on the liberty of the working class, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the elderly, minority ethnic groups, women, etc. You see democracy as intrusive on the liberty of business and 'the individual'. I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong - because that is a lost cause - just that your concept of liberty is limited and subjective.

....and it's not just you, this is a common problem among American-style free market libertarians. They see the 'libert' in the title as objective moral authority and see anyone who opposes them as opponents of freedom. That's how it appears to me, anyway, in my own completely subjective mind. I could be wrong.

Well, I am 6'5" and flew twice every week for work for a few years, and I can tell you that seeing a fat person come down the aisle looking in my direction as (s)he is searching for the appropriate seat was one of my biggest concerns flying. If you check in online and use seatguru.com you can usually get some extra legroom in the right seats. Nothing you do, however, will alleviate the hell of sweaty odoriferous undulating rolls of girth spilling over into your personal space from your temporary neighbor.

>> ^MilkmanDan:
I'm tall, but not extreme percentile tall -- about 6'2". When I fly, some fat (like, really fat) person overflowing into my seat is way down on my concerns list, which goes a little something like this:
1. Some inconsiderate bastard in the seat in front of me decides that they will be a little more comfortable by reclining their headrest to a position about 3 inches in front of my nose, which leaves me short on breathing room AND legroom. Reclining my own seat relieves the breathing room issue but does so at the expense of the person behind me (which I hate to do), and the lack of leg/knee room remains.
2. Some old woman or young guy decides that riding in a cramped cattle car is the perfect time to wear a full gallon of perfume/cologne. I'm pretty highly anti-'fragrances' in general, and any prolonged exposure to even light applications of perfume or cologne tend to give me a headache. So, being inches away from someone that smells like they bathe in the shit puts me into a "HULK SMASH!" mood pretty quick.
3. Screaming baby. I understand that it can't be avoided sometimes. I know that pressure changes in the cabin affect younger kids eardrums and sinuses in ways that can be painful -- I used to have the same problem. But the parents that immediately give it up as a lost cause and give you dirty looks like "yeah, I know my kid is producing more decibels of sound than the jet engine outside, but I'm not even going to make an effort to try to calm them down" bother me.
...
4,016. Being seated next to a bloated sack of protoplasm.

I'm tall, but not extreme percentile tall -- about 6'2". When I fly, some fat (like, really fat) person overflowing into my seat is *way* down on my concerns list, which goes a little something like this:

1. Some inconsiderate bastard in the seat in front of me decides that they will be a little more comfortable by reclining their headrest to a position about 3 inches in front of my nose, which leaves me short on breathing room AND legroom. Reclining my own seat relieves the breathing room issue but does so at the expense of the person behind me (which I hate to do), and the lack of leg/knee room remains.

2. Some old woman or young guy decides that riding in a cramped cattle car is the perfect time to wear a full gallon of perfume/cologne. I'm pretty highly anti-'fragrances' in general, and any prolonged exposure to even light applications of perfume or cologne tend to give me a headache. So, being inches away from someone that smells like they bathe in the shit puts me into a "HULK SMASH!" mood pretty quick.

3. Screaming baby. I understand that it can't be avoided sometimes. I know that pressure changes in the cabin affect younger kids eardrums and sinuses in ways that can be painful -- I used to have the same problem. But the parents that immediately give it up as a lost cause and give you dirty looks like "yeah, I know my kid is producing more decibels of sound than the jet engine outside, but I'm not even going to make an effort to try to calm them down" bother me.

...

4,016. Being seated next to a bloated sack of protoplasm.

How anyone could downvote this is beyond me. Oh well, some people are lost causes.

The more you're telling him he's wrong, the likelier it is to strengthen his resolve and make him stick to his beliefs. It's one thing for him to be told things which firstly he doesn't know and secondly he thinks he knows but doesn't, and it's another to tell him what you believe and let him come to whatever realization you want him to come to, on his own. Telling someone how something really is without holding a position of authority over them is almost always a lost cause because they'll most likely start to look for, or make up out of whole cloth, reasons and explanations for why you're wrong instead of rationalizing whether or not they themselves have been.

>> ^joe2:
i don't get it


>> ^2pornot2p:
try showing it to people out of context http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lQyuxgFx-Y#t=23


If you don't get it then, you're a lost cause.

Why doesn't Obama ever address these idiots? Is it that he doesn't want to acknowledge them? Or are the people who buy this stuff such a lost cause that they don't matter anymore?

This is a subject in which I can get really heated about. Not so much California but every state. I am in Texas and I feel the same way. Education gets cut before anything else. We fight these wars that will never end.. war on terror.. war on drugs... but we can't fight a war on stupidity? Why would anyone think that funneling billions of dollars into the first two lost causes is better than educating the people to make better decisions? So what if someone wants to smoke crack? I'm not doing it. Crackheads won't teach my kids. Who will though? Teachers are already underpaid and under appreciated. So we cut education spending to the point where it is more difficult to get an education that it is to do anything else. People who are more educated commit less crimes. Isn't that another benefit to society? I want to slit my wrists when I hear about the money we are spending on "Abstinence Only" education when there are fucking schools and kids out there without books! Do ANYTHING but spend our dollars on that bullshit. People will only get more dumb and easier to control..... that rings of a conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

>> ^quantumushroom:
There will always be statists OUTRAGED that the people who actually earn the money should want to keep it! Never understood that, or will.

It's almost not worth having any discourse with you then.

Did not the people who earn the money benefit from government funded amenities, likes schools, roads, health care etc. ?

If they did not then they were already born into a family that could afford to do everything privately... but for how many generations can you go back on a currently rich family to find a point where they came from working stock who used public infrastructure to help them up?

See, in my mind, we need to provide as much as we can to allow the poor and uneducated to become educated, become skilled, become valuable, EARN an income and start contributing to society. By doing so we therefore start having a lot more self worth, a lot better family environment and a greater starting point for their children, and their children's children.

You great a self servicing system whereby you continually reduce the number of poor and destitute who need help from others.

YOUR mindset is that nothing should be provided to anyone, and everyone can get a great job if they just work hard enough. Really? So how do those people afford somewhere to live, an education, health care etc. while becoming skilled enough to become productive?

My mindset is that if you have enough money to be living comfortably and doing well for yourself and your family then why the F*CK not be giving some of that back to the community that gave you a chance if you needed it, and is giving a chance for less people to be reliant on support as a whole.


Upset because there's corruption in endeavors the government is supposed to spend money on (like defense) the statist would rather see money "wasted" on endeavors the government has no legitimate role in providing (health care, government schools, price controls).

What? Seriously, you don't think a government should provide health care or EDUF*CKINGCATION? Well, I write you completely off then. If you think that education should be a privately run endeavor, then you are a fully, and completely lost cause. If you can't see how running schools as profitable enterprises by private firms with private interests is a BAD IDEA, then, well, I just cannot understand that mindset.

Ditto with healthcare

And I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in regards to price controls (unless you mean the subsidies for farmers etc.), so I'll leave that alone.


Which is dumber, supporting a government big enough to give you everything you want, or acting surprised when it takes away everything you have?


Or, perhaps believing that private enterprise has your best interest at heart and that somehow poor people can lift themselves up by their bootstraps through the goodness of private firms. Yeah, that's going to happen.

Stop with this 'I have money, I'm doing fine, I work hard, man I wish I didn't have to give some of MY MY MY hard earned money for those lazy poor people' mentality. It's selfish, lacking in any empathy at all, and just so narrow minded it sickens others.

Yeah, I'm unconvinced and I will confess that I'm not going to read a 42 page document about it. The Corby's have tried several different explanations as to why Schappelle got caught, and they chop and change each time the story falls short. Like when they argued that it was Australian baggage handlers trafficking weed from Brisbane to Sydney - as if you wouldn't just drive it down there.

I feel badly that she's got the sentence she has, and I feel badly that her True Believers go to such effort for a lost cause, but I don't think the evidence is compelling enough that she didn't do it.

I think the media has given the story enough scrutiny, and if there was a story in there the Aussie trash media would invest a fair bit in uncovering it. The good news for True Believers is that if they're right, the media will get onto it.

I doubt this will be the end result, however.