Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Don't Be So Fucking Fat

By James A C Joyce in Op-Ed
Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:15:59 AM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

I was just watching a documentary on BBC2. I believe it was called Diet Junkies, though I'm almost certainly wrong. Now, I knew from reading all those anti-corporate books like Fast Food Nation and No Logo that fast food companies don't give a shit about their customers -- in fact, it's pretty fucking obvious -- but I still couldn't believe the number of people who got suckered in by these bullshit diets.


The one diet which sticks in my mind was some kind of red protein goo. One G-list celebrity they 'interviewed' about it commented that it "tasted like cough syrup". It took the US and UK by storm, generating millions of dollars for its manufacturers until people started dying of starvation and heart failure. Only then did people realise that not consuming any carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals or micronutrients might result in a thoroughly avoidable death.

What the fuck? When did people get so stupid that they forgot that consuming nothing but amino acid polymers might fuck you up royally? It ought to be common sense. You need to eat properly to live. There's this thing called the food pyramid. Do you see a section for "shitty-tasting protein gunk"? No. Why not? Because badly-flavoured, artificially-processed gloop is not a part of a balanced diet, and you're a fuckwit if you believe otherwise.

The unfortunate thing is that a disturbingly small number of these fucknuts are dying. I reckon most of these people have absolutely no willpower and were actually cheating on their diet. It's gotta be pretty hard to stick to a diet which requires you to consume nothing but a small dose of random gunk four times a day.

I need to figure out a way to push my own line of crappy diet foods to grab some of the diet dollars. I think I'll call it "No Bullshit". They'll all come in plain white boxes with "NO BULLSHIT" written in big fucking block capitals in black, with the name underneath. And no bullshit names either, just "Muesli" or "Cornflakes", all coming in simple kilogram boxes. You want more, buy more. You want less, tough. On the back of every item will be a health disclaimer:

WARNING: EATING TOO MUCH OF THIS COULD MAKE YOU REALLY FUCKING FAT.

I'll use the money I make to lobby supermarkets to replace the sweets they have at the counter to ensnare kids with my 'healthier' products.

I'll write a bestselling diet book under the same title. It'll be the only diet with the unique distinction of actually having a fucking basis in fact. The introduction would consist of "This diet requires some degree of willpower. If that's a problem, you don't deserve to be thin because you're obviously some kind of a fucking pussy."

Not being a lardass consists of two very simple habits: not stuffing your fucking face all the time and getting off your fat fucking arse. As such, the only excuse you have for weighing as much as a small car is if you're in a wheelchair like Stephen Hawking or if it's genetic. In that case, it's perfectly understable if you starve yourself for three weeks and yet your belly still looks like two beach balls duct taped together.

And being lazy is no excuse either. I'm a lazy fuck and I'm not fat. I have a dead normal body mass index of 22.1, and I literally never exercise. I only walk for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes a day and do little over and above that. Why am I not fat? Because I don't eat constantly. Put the fucking Picnic bar down and stop munching. Drink some damn water. Be lazy like me. How?

The trick is to find some kind of hobby (in my case, trolling K5) which you can get sufficiently into that it will distract you from eating. This will cut you down to three small meals a day as I have. And don't add anything to your food either. I used to put salt on everything and I was twitchy as a motherfucker. Then I stopped. It was a little tough at first, but now I don't think about it. So just do it. Stock up on instant noodles, cereal, baked beans and bread, and just eat stuff that's quick to prepare. Don't keep snacks lying around in front of your computer or knitting chair or whatever, or you'll just wind up constantly munching on rubbish while you're in the zone. (This is known as "grazing").

Failing that, just skip breakfast. It's easier than it sounds; just set your alarm clock to twenty minutes later. Bam! You just eliminated a meal. Don't worry about the health implications; if you're eating so much that you have to consider fasting, er, dieting, then the health side-effects of skipping breakfast are most likely negligible in comparison. Reduce the amount of stuff that sinks down your oesophagus and you may even lose some weight.

Simple as that, people.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
How fat are you?
o dangerously underweight 4%
o underweight 20%
o normal 48%
o overweight 20%
o obese 6%

Votes: 272
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o the food pyramid
o Also by James A C Joyce


Display: Sort:
Don't Be So Fucking Fat | 263 comments (232 topical, 31 editorial, 3 hidden)
Suggestion: (1.55 / 9) (#3)
by Subtillus on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 06:34:27 PM EST

Stop eating babies.

But... but... but... (none / 0) (#145)
by tap dancing lenin puppet on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:33:46 PM EST

I friggen love babies!  Especially ribs... mmmm... I'm talkin' REAAALL baby back ribs...

[ Parent ]
Food pyramind is a scam (2.44 / 18) (#4)
by StephenThompson on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 06:34:38 PM EST

The food pyramid is not really a guide to what is the most healthy diet.  It is actually a guide to the economics of food production.

The government tells you to eat grains the most, because thats what we have most of; if everyone got the idea that meat is the only thing that matters, the food economy would be destablized.

Its quite obviously a farce when include in the food pyramid is sweets.  Sweets are not a necessary part of the human diet, and sweets as we know them in america today did not exist before the historically recent mass production of refined sugar.  Sweets are on the list simply because the do provide a significant part in the American agricultural economy.

Also, dairy products are not a necessary part of the human diet; that all started a while back with the arabs.  For the most of human history, people did not drink milk.  That whole thing about milk being good for you is a scam;  yes they add vitamins and vitamin D, but there are other sources for that.  Milk is essentially fat in water but because there is a huge industry for it, it gets a separate section apart from fats and sweets.  

Might as well make salt a food group because you need iodine.

Point of fact: the vast majority of humans today (and throughout history) are vegetarians.  On the other hand, there are tribes who only eat meat.  The variation in lifespan does not correlate strongly with mortality, so, basically, the whole idea of food groups is pretty useless as a health guide.  

Salt and iodine. (1.60 / 5) (#5)
by Scott Robinson on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 06:47:15 PM EST

Iodized salt is not natural. It's fortified that way.

Look up scurvy.

[ Parent ]

Thank you Trollstein (3.00 / 6) (#9)
by StephenThompson on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:08:53 PM EST

The whole point was that we add vitamin D to milk and say its good for you; analagous to adding iodine to salt and saying its good for you.

Scurvy is causes by a lack of vitamic C, not iodine.

[ Parent ]

Not Very Complete (none / 1) (#148)
by virg on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:00:25 PM EST

> The whole point was that we add vitamin D to milk and say its good for you; analagous to adding iodine to salt and saying its good for you.

No, it's not. Vitamin D is added to milk because vitamin D assists in the uptake of calcium which oddly enough doesn't need to be added to milk, because it's already there. If there was no vitamin D in your milk, it'd still have health benefits.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Iodine's for gointers. (none / 1) (#92)
by handslikesnakes on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:15:28 PM EST

And other thyroid problems.

[ Parent ]
Er, no. (3.00 / 7) (#6)
by BCoates on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 06:58:01 PM EST

The government tells you to eat grains the most, because thats what we have most of; if everyone got the idea that meat is the only thing that matters, the food economy would be destablized.

If people ate more meat and less grains, there would be substantially more demand for grains as animal feed. The "four food groups" model which was incorrectly interpreted as indicating that meat should make up 1/4 of your diet (and milk another 1/4) would be much better for the agricultural companies if anyone was insane enough to follow it.

Its quite obviously a farce when include in the food pyramid is sweets. Sweets are not a necessary part of the human diet, and sweets as we know them in america today did not exist before the historically recent mass production of refined sugar. Sweets are on the list simply because the do provide a significant part in the American agricultural economy.

Sweets are not a necessary part of the human diet, but they are part of the American diet. If you didn't have a space for them, people would reasonably wonder what category candy goes in. And they're quite plainly depicted as "Use sparingly", which is hardly a ringing endorsement.



[ Parent ]

Would more demand destabilize prices? Duh (none / 2) (#8)
by StephenThompson on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:04:49 PM EST

Yeah, meat production requires more resources than grain production, so if demand went up, prices would go up to.

The four food groups was wrong because it was dominated by the beef and dairy lobbies.

Putting sweets at the pinnacle of the pyramid is the endorsement!

[ Parent ]

Increased demand causes lower prices (none / 3) (#11)
by BCoates on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:22:38 PM EST

at least in the long-term.

The four food groups was wrong because it was dominated by the beef and dairy lobbies.

It was "wrong" because it was oriented around minimum intake needed for nutrition, not optimal intake to not turn into a giant fatass. Milk was never supposed to be 1/4 of your diet by calorie or mass--but drinking a reasonable quantity of milk every day is one way to avoid certain nutritional deficiencies. In 1956 when the basice four food groups was released this was much more of a concern than the modern obiesity problem.

[ Parent ]

And thank you to Trollistotle (none / 2) (#12)
by StephenThompson on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:32:26 PM EST

Increased demand causes lower prices does it?   Well I suppose you are thinking about a growth market where supply can scale faster than demand like a commodity.  Unfortunately, agriculture has natural limitations where overproduction leads to failure, and overall it is not a growth market.  So increased demand overall will increase prices overall.

Your point about "nutritional deficiencies" fixed by milk is shy of the mark, since it does nothing to address the fact that the only reason milk has this property is that vitamins are added to it.  Might as well just has vitamin water and save the fat.

[ Parent ]

Look, ma! A half-assed troll! (none / 1) (#15)
by it certainly is on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 08:23:40 PM EST

Increased demand causes lower prices does it? Well I suppose you are thinking about a growth market where supply can scale faster than demand like a commodity.

Have you ever heard of these things called subsidies? The agriculture industry already vastly over-produces food. The US (and EU) pay farmers to keep all that excess food off the market. Farmers are ready for that ramp-up in demand, any time you're ready.

the only reason milk has this property is that vitamins are added to it

Calcium is not added to milk, it's already in there. Unless you like eating chalk, or even worse -- vegetables -- stick to milk.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 1) (#18)
by BCoates on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 08:48:47 PM EST

Well I suppose you are thinking about a growth market where supply can scale faster than demand like a commodity

Right. Like the Agricultural market in recent memory, for example.

Your point about "nutritional deficiencies" fixed by milk is shy of the mark, since it does nothing to address the fact that the only reason milk has this property is that vitamins are added to it.

Not all of the nutritional value of milk comes from additives. At the very least it's a good source of calcium.

Might as well just has vitamin water and save the fat.

Or drink low-fat or non-fat milk, which they've had for some time now.

But this is missing the point somewhat; neither the '4 food groups' nor the 'food pyramid' are advertised as the only way to have a complete diet, they're just soundbyte-sized suggestions that are reasonably useful and can fit in a public service announcement. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Dairy subsidies, price controls, and mandatory advertising funds--that's your conspiracy, right there.

[ Parent ]

Wrong facts. (3.00 / 4) (#14)
by Kal on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:55:11 PM EST

Point of fact: the vast majority of humans today (and throughout history) are vegetarians. On the other hand, there are tribes who only eat meat. The variation in lifespan does not correlate strongly with mortality, so, basically, the whole idea of food groups is pretty useless as a health guide.

The majority of people today may be vegetarians, but through the course of human history more time has been spent being omnivores than anything else. Heck, it was only possible to be vegetarian within the last 10,000 years or so due to the growth of agriculture as the main food supply.

[ Parent ]
agriculture (none / 2) (#44)
by auraslip on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:38:51 AM EST

Hunter/GATHERS
as in 90% tuberous roots, then some berries and nuts.
What the hell do you think monkeys live off?
124
[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 3) (#75)
by Kal on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:44:00 AM EST

Hunter/GATHERS as in 90% tuberous roots, then some berries and nuts.

Hardly. What do you think the "hunter" in hunter/gatherer is implying? They ate a lot of meat for a variety of reasons. One was because it was pelntiful at the time, over hunting lead to massive extinctions at the end of the last ice age which in turn led to settled agricultural communities. Another reason was that it kept their population down to a supportable size.

It was only once people started settling and farming that populations started to grow and that was largely because of the difference in diet, which allowed women the ability to become pregnant more often, and the fact that sedentary lives allowed them to care for more children at once.

What the hell do you think monkeys live off?

No idea, but it's obviously not the same things paleolithic humans lived off of since that enviroment no longer exists.

[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 1) (#93)
by zephc on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:36:21 PM EST

it's been said that the increased meat in the diet lead to larger brain capacities in our ancestor species.

[ Parent ]
Depending on what you define as human... (none / 2) (#48)
by dasunt on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:42:54 AM EST

Human ancestors seem to be frugavoirs (fruit eaters).

When we went over to an omnivoirous diet, judging by the success of our near relatives (chimps) we were probably mostly vegetarians.

Its only modern, industrialized humans that are eating a large percentage of meat (and a few exceptions - historical Inuit, etc).

As for milk, a lot of groups tend to lack the gene that preserves lactose digestability into adulthood. Taking humanity as a whole, milk-drinking is the exception, rather then the rule.



[ Parent ]
Unless of course (none / 3) (#54)
by dforsey on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:15:13 AM EST

One theory holds that humans had a significant semi-aquatic phase in our evolution (hence the hairless, subcutaneous layer of fat, downturned nostrils, etc).
If so, then a major part of our diet during a time when other large adaptations in our physiology was occuring, would have been fish and other aquatic animals.
I recall one comparitive physiologist prof arguing that human intestines aren't well adapted for a herbivorous life (I sure someone here will correct me on this one), unless of course we were caprophagic at some point as well.... :-)

[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 2) (#74)
by Kal on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:37:55 AM EST

Human ancestors seem to be frugavoirs (fruit eaters).

No, they were quite omnivorous. Meat was a large part of their diet.

Its only modern, industrialized humans that are eating a large percentage of meat (and a few exceptions - historical Inuit, etc).

Paleolithic humans probably ate more meat than we do now. They also probably spent less time working per week for food and, until very recently, were healthier and lived longer.

[ Parent ]
I wasn't talking about H. Sapiens. (none / 1) (#113)
by dasunt on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:31:46 AM EST

Human ancestors were frugivoirs.

Then we shifted towards omnivores.

Most primates are plant based omnivores, FYI.



[ Parent ]
You may be correct. (none / 1) (#135)
by Kal on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:05:25 PM EST

I'm not as knowledgeable about the hominids prior to H. Sapeins as I would like.

Most primates are plant based omnivores, FYI.

Most modern primates are, but that doesn't really have any relavance when talking about primates, or humans, existing in the radically different enviroment that existed prior to the start of agriculture.

[ Parent ]
Dairy... (3.00 / 4) (#37)
by thefirelane on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:06:49 AM EST

Also, dairy products are not a necessary part of the human diet; that all started a while back with the arabs. For the most of human history, people did not drink milk.

For most of human history, people lived in warm climates. When people moved into really cold places like Europe being able to consume highly caloric things like dairy became advantageous, so this trait was passed on.

The "whole thing about milk being good for you" isn't so much a scam as a long standing cultural belief mixed with previous generations fear of "wasting diseases" (granted, it is re-enforced by a large marketing campaign)

There are places where lactose intolerance is not a significant handicap, and many people there retain this trait ... that is why you don't see much dairy in Asian food.


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Populations move. (3.00 / 7) (#70)
by fn0rd on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:52:33 AM EST

I have a cousin who teaches in a 95% black elementary school in Philly. Being mainly poor kids, many of them have their breakfast and lunch provided for them. The only beverage (other than water) they are given is milk. Fully half of them, being of African ancestry, are lactose intolerant, so the program that is supposed to be providing them with nutrition is actually contributing to a decrease in their ability to digest nutrients, or is wasteful for the kids who choose not to drink the milk that will make them sick. Of course, the dairy lobby will cry a river if this nice little subsidy is challenged in any way, so my cousin gets all the half pint containers of milk she can use.

This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
[ Parent ]

Lactose intolerance (none / 1) (#136)
by Perianwyr on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:30:13 PM EST

This also has more to do with not having much in the way of cows. There are more horses than cows in China especially- but note that the Mongolians are avid consumers of horse milk. They love to knock it back fermented or distilled, too.

[ Parent ]
Take off the tinfoil hat. (2.75 / 4) (#104)
by debillitatus on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:19:56 AM EST

Well, gee, this could probably be <nt>, but whatever.

First of all, what you're saying is quasi-raving-lunacy on its face. The food pyramid is a scam to control the consumption of American diets? Turn off the X-Files.

Second, you clearly don't understand the economics of food production. An increase in meat consumption would actually increase grain consumption, because as we all know, for every calorie you get from meat, the animal had to consume between 5 and 10 calories of grain. Hell, even PETA would back me on this one, and in fact this is one of the common arguments for vegetarianism.

Third, your statement "Point of fact: the vast majority of humans today (and throughout history) are vegetarians" is complete and utter horseshit. Unless, of course, you have some wacky definition of "vegetarian".

I would define it as someone who consumes none of their calories from meat. Let's talk about people today, because who knows what people really ate in the past. The only place on this planet where vegetarianism is practiced in great numbers is South Asia. Even there, pretty much the only people who practice what you'd call strict vegetarianism are Brahmins, and I'd say in round numbers it's less than 10% of the population. There are also practicing Buddhist vegetarians in SE Asia, but these are also a minority. No matter how you slice it, vegetarianism is not practiced by any significant number of people in Europe, Africa, China, or the Americas. And it's really a minority practice in South Asia. I don't know where you're getting this "vast majority" claim.

Now, you might be using a very relaxed definition of "vegetarian", in the sense of "people who get a small percentage of their calories from meat because it is too expensive". Even then you're still not talking about a vast majority of people, because this is not something which is true anywhere in the Western hemisphere, or Europe. Perhaps in Africa and China.

Finally, take off the goddamn tinfoil hat. Repeat after me: Not everything is a conspiracy. Even things the government does, which look like bad ideas, is more likely to be the result of incompetence. Not everything is a conspiracy. Even things the government does, which look like bad ideas, is more likely to be the result of incompetence.... Rejoin the real world.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

not china (none / 1) (#216)
by metalgeek on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 10:12:17 AM EST

trust me, they eat meat here.
lots of it.
(well poor farmers eat less, but they still eat it)
They think your quite wierd here if your a vegetarian. almost every "vegetarian" I know here eats meat now (not alot, but they do eat it), just because it's to much of a pain not to.


"K5 is a site where users have the motto 'Anyone Who Isn't Me Is An Idiot, And Anyone Who Disagrees With Me Is Gay'." skyknight
[ Parent ]
Dear fat slobs, (2.15 / 19) (#13)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 07:35:08 PM EST

Having a hard time sticking to a diet? For US5$ SIGNOR SPAGHETTI will come to your house and punch your fucking lights out whenever you indulge in that slab of cheesecake or whatever. Results guaranteed! In the interim, ask yourself: "what for did god give me a body?" Ah, that is a good question, fatso. Perhaps he wanted you to leave your room occasionally. Maybe go dancing, play touch football, or if you are so hideous that you have no friends, chase the dog around the park.

Just a thought.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

i picture you as that sock puppet from conan [mt] (none / 2) (#107)
by kpaul on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:49:08 AM EST


2014 Halloween Costumes
[ Parent ]
A better solution! (2.70 / 10) (#16)
by Polverone on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 08:27:21 PM EST

The best weight-loss plan involves a chemical called 2, 4 dinitrophenol. What's so great about it? It boosts your resting metabolic rate. You do not have to do anything but consume a dose of the chemical on a regular basis. It'll make your cells work harder, all the time, and melt those pounds of fat away!

What's not great about it? Like other nitrated aromatic compounds, it can be poisonous to kidneys and liver, especially consumed in excess. Oh, and it tends to make people feel tired. And it can affect your heartbeat, or cause potentially-fatal hyperthermia (overheating) due to increased metabolism.

But it works! And it doesn't require any thought or personal willpower! You can already find a variety of greedy middlemen entrepreneurial vendors selling it on the net. Surely this is a more effective approach than telling people to change their habits.
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.

sounds like meth! (none / 0) (#43)
by auraslip on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:36:39 AM EST

when can I start?!
124
[ Parent ]
today! (none / 1) (#85)
by Polverone on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 03:29:14 PM EST

2,4 DNP is not illegal to own, produce, or ingest. It is illegal (at least in the US) to sell for human consumption, but that's not your problem.

It doesn't have any euphoric effects or physical dependencies, so you don't have to worry about addiction. You might be able to get it or a related compound cheaply from outside the US, since they're still used in some countries as pesticides. The exposed organisms die of metabolic exhaustion. Nifty, eh?
--
It's not a just, good idea; it's the law.
[ Parent ]

Some details about this stuff (none / 2) (#103)
by rpresser on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:51:07 PM EST

can apparently be found here. The stuff sounds pretty scary.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
DNP turns your sweat bright yellow (none / 2) (#106)
by wocko on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:02:18 AM EST

Seriously, this stuff is way out there. The difference between a therapeutic and a lethal dose is less than one order of magnitude. Too much of this stuff and your body basically cooks itself from the inside out. http://www.ottawaedge.com/oesept/health/paulrubinato-sept2002.shtml

[ Parent ]
Hah (none / 1) (#134)
by Stickerboy on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:49:12 AM EST

Reminds me of the fad in the 18th century where upper-class European ladies used to take small amounts of arsenic, because it was fashionable to have that ultra-pale complexion it produced.

So you're selling a product that will either make people slim or kill them?  After first blush, doesn't sound like that bad of an idea.

[ Parent ]

Breakfast is very important! (2.90 / 20) (#17)
by it certainly is on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 08:28:45 PM EST

If you work in an office. Why? Well, if you skip breakfast, you'll be "exhausted" from your trip to the office, so you'll buy A BIG BAG OF FUCKING CRISPS from the vending machine. You will then munch on them as you read your morning email, websites, whatever.

DO NOT DO THAT

Instead, eat breakfast. Now, I'm not talking about fucking Coco Pops or Ricicles or any fucking kids shit where you get a free batmobile at the bottom of the packet. I'm talking the real stuff like Weetabix, All Bran or Special K. Even museli is good if you can cast the image of hampster bedding from your mind. You can then burn off some of that breakfast on the way to work, and you won't need to eat anything while reclining in your Aeron chair, at least until lunchtime.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Since we don't have (none / 3) (#35)
by qpt on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 11:24:30 PM EST

Fucking Crisps (they sound delicious!) in the States, I don't eat until lunch.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

I believe they call them Fritos. (none / 2) (#46)
by it certainly is on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:40:18 AM EST

Is that short for 'fried potatos'?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Yes, it is (none / 1) (#49)
by qpt on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:56:14 AM EST

But the damn things are made of corn.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Just to be pendantic... (3.00 / 4) (#129)
by nlscb on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:00:17 AM EST

Our Corn is Maize to you UKians, and Their corn is wheat to us USians - so Fritos are Maize, and Crisps are potatoes, and I am getting confused.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 1) (#185)
by niku on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 07:07:36 PM EST

Do you really not know that:

crisps = chips
chips = french fries

in the UK
--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com
[ Parent ]
Are Shreddies OK? (none / 2) (#57)
by James A C Joyce on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:31:37 AM EST

I'm not talking about Frosted Shreddies or the chocolate-coated Shreddies; just the plain Shreddies that taste a little bit like bran flakes. Mmmm...bran flakes.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

How could Shreddies not be OK? (none / 3) (#61)
by it certainly is on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:08:06 AM EST

They're little prisons for blue guys with baseball caps! David Blunkett uses them on bogus asylum seekers.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I like the way you think, kid! (none / 1) (#65)
by James A C Joyce on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:25:04 AM EST

You're hired!

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

lost in translation (none / 2) (#111)
by chimera on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:23:07 AM EST

you forgot the obvious - fucking before breakfast is the best start of the day you can have. it uses up energy, liberates the juices and generally makes your work seem all done even before it started.


[ Parent ]
Last time I checked... (none / 3) (#119)
by warrax on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:02:40 AM EST

Special K contained more sugar than the regular Corn Flakes, i.e. too much. Why? Because it tastes like fucking shit, that's why!

-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
[ Parent ]
True... (none / 1) (#122)
by spasticfraggle on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:04:49 AM EST

Last time my other half was working on adjusting her weight she checked out what to eat for breakfast. Special-K turned out to be one of the worst things - it contains almost nothing of nutritional value - except sugar.

She eats bran flakes now - filling, full of healthy stuff (not least bran), and less calories than Special-K.

As far as I remember anyhow...

--
I'm the straw that broke the camel's back!
[ Parent ]

that depends (none / 1) (#242)
by justo on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 04:27:07 PM EST

on the kind of "special k" you're using

[ Parent ]
And where else am I going to get a free batmobile? (none / 1) (#213)
by mold on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 02:07:35 AM EST

Hmm? Yeah, didn't think you had an answer to that. I'd respond in full to you, but I've gotta go get some Fruit Loops with Mashmallows to snack on.

---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
Breakfast makes me hungry before lunch (none / 1) (#238)
by wurp on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:16:32 PM EST

Eating no breakfast means I can make it to lunch with no problems.  I'm not sure why that is, but it is consistently so.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]
Breakfast makes my stomach accept more (none / 0) (#262)
by fbjon on Sun May 30, 2004 at 02:27:55 PM EST

True for me too. I do get hungry before lunch if I don't have breakfast, but that's a good feeling, it's not a critical hunger, more like "ah it's lunch soon". If I eat breakfast, I'm already in the eating cycle, my stomach is wide and awake, and I can eat more for lunch than I would've without having breakfast.

[ Parent ]
fast food companies don't give a shit about their (2.35 / 14) (#19)
by scatbubba on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 08:56:04 PM EST

"fast food companies don't give a shit about their customers "

What a load of shit. Fast food companies deliver EXACLTY what their customers request and nothing more.

No they don't (2.86 / 15) (#23)
by godix on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 09:17:32 PM EST

I've been saying 'No ketchup, no mustard' for years and have yet to get the clueless fuckers to actually give me a burger with no ketchup or mustard on it. Fast food companies serve shit just acceptable enough to get you to come back when you're hungry and in a hurry, they certainly don't serve what you want.

It's dawned on me that Zero Tolerance only seems to mean putting extra police in poor, run-down areas, and not in the Stock Exchange.
- Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]
nice sig. (nt) (none / 3) (#42)
by vivelame on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:35:24 AM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Annoying to get Healthy Foods (2.00 / 6) (#20)
by cronian on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 09:09:03 PM EST

They don't sell stuff that is healthy, can be made by lazy people, and people like. In Asia they rice, which you only have to to throw in a rice cooker, and it gets cooked. Noodles require toppings. Fast food is real unhealthy. Pretty much anything that can easily be microwaved is also pretty unhealthy, unless its some expensive poisonous health food which tastes bad, and is actually unhealthy because it is poisonous.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
Vegetables (none / 3) (#27)
by JanneM on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 09:47:40 PM EST

You know, vegetables really needs no cooking at all. No microwaving, no cookers, nothing. Get a random assortment, cut into pieces and mix on a plate. Instant salad. What veggies? Tomatoes, cucumber and salad leaf are classics, of course, but maybe a little boring. Also consider fresh mushrooms, asparagus (ready cooked from a can), paprika, chili pepper, various root vegetables like carrots, thinly sliced, and even some fruits (a bit of apple can make a pretty big taste difference, for example).

You want to get fancy, take an tablespoon of olive oil and a spoon of vinegar in a cup. Add salt and pepper, stir and pour over your salad - and Presto! Instant salad with dressing! Fancy dressing? Stir in some mustard as well.

You really hungry? Add a small block of tofu, a can of tuna in water, or a little Feta cheese. Gives you the protein you need.

Why make things complicated?
---
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
[ Parent ]

they go bad and lack calories (1.75 / 4) (#29)
by cronian on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:14:37 PM EST

You have to actually buy them regularly because they go bad. Also, they have about 0 calories which means they don't make a meal.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Lack calories? I thought we were in a diet thread? (none / 2) (#118)
by Nursie on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:56:24 AM EST

Lacking calories compared to heavily procesed food is actually a good thing!

Have a steak with it then, or some ham or whatever. Just avoid unnecessary sugar/salt/fat.

True about going off, but you can buy frozen vegetables (peas/beans/bell peppers/all sorts of stuff). Also you could make stuff like potato salad at the weekend and it'll be good for a few days.

Either way, the article seems to be about the fact that conveniece food is bad for you and causes fat people. So lose a little convenience, lose a little weight!

(Disclaimer, I'm not that thin at 13 stone and 6ft, and I love fast food but only eat it occasionaly. One can )

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
healthy!=no calories (none / 1) (#166)
by cronian on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:40:45 PM EST

I never mentioned anything about a low-calorie diet. You need so many calories everyday. The real problems are with food that your body cannot break down easily--most often processed food. When vegetables are frozen, it pretty much destroys any nutrients they have.

I'm an American. How many pounds are 13 stone? Although if you are British, you may not be aware of good food. When England conquered, why didn't they abandon you abandon your prior cuisine? America is still suffering from its British culinary heritage, although I will admit American fast food has contributed a bit. I'm not sure I can explain what good food is to you.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
A bit? (none / 1) (#233)
by Nursie on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 07:50:21 AM EST

American fast food has caught on so much that the british are going the same obese way the USians have gone.

Fast food counts a lot for this. As does cheap processed food, a product of mass marketed commercial society, which the US has and the british seem to aspire to (god knows why???)

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Who Deserves Blame? (none / 1) (#244)
by cronian on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 08:42:51 PM EST

Although America was responsible, America imported lousy cousine from Great Britain. According to Wikipedia the British were responsible for inventing take-away which would be the predecessor of fast food. Also, how can you blame the United States, as England is the 51st State as Tony Blair knows so well?

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Can't ault you there. (none / 1) (#246)
by Nursie on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 07:04:16 AM EST

Much to the chagrin of the british people we do seem to be becoming the 51st state. Oh dear. If only we had a PM with a spine.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
You can get rice outside Asia (none / 3) (#28)
by HeckKitty on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:03:46 PM EST

Even in the middle of Iowa, you can get rice at an ordinary grocery store -- brown rice, even. And you can throw it in a rice cooker and 30-45 minutes later, bing, you have rice. Noodles don't require much in the way of topping -- try sauteing tuna with garlic and tomatoes. It does seem that a lot of the food that is most quick and easy also has the most fat, sugar, and sodium. But there are alternatives -- which are also often cheaper.

[ Parent ]
true (none / 0) (#30)
by cronian on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:15:15 PM EST

Yet, people don't.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
i guess my rice cooker is on steroids (none / 0) (#33)
by clover_kicker on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:52:34 PM EST

it only takes 10 minutes to steam the rice
--
I am the very model of a K5 personality.
I intersperse obscenity with tedious banality.

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#73)
by BJH on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:12:55 AM EST

I imagine it depends on how much you cook in one go.
--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]
ever tried microwaving leftovers? (nt) (none / 1) (#112)
by chimera on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:30:26 AM EST

right...

[ Parent ]
You can't eat just rice.. (none / 2) (#250)
by univgeek on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 09:06:09 PM EST

you need at least one side-dish.

Of course you can get pre-cooked side-dishes, which are pretty low in carbs. Or just mix boiled rice and butter-milk. Eat with pickles, no, not the sissy american ones. Real pickles with real green or red chillies, lotsa oil and some other veges, spicy enough to burn a hole in your tongue and cause sweating on your nose and scalp.

This is a pretty balanced diet - carbs from rice, protein and fat from the buttermilk (or yoghurt). Of course vitamins etc. are lacking, but what's the vitamin supplement tablet for, eh?
Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]

3, Encourage (none / 0) (#261)
by metalfan on Wed May 26, 2004 at 10:59:48 PM EST

Nice sig.

[ Parent ]
This just in... (1.58 / 17) (#21)
by skyknight on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 09:16:18 PM EST

Everyone who votes this story down is fat.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Exactly (2.00 / 5) (#32)
by Hot For The Teacher on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 10:47:20 PM EST

And the timing didn't help either.

Let's hope it's still alive in about 6-8 hours, when Europeans should start voting en masse.

[ Parent ]

"en masse" (none / 2) (#79)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:44:32 PM EST

Very funny.

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
Don't skip breakfast. (2.25 / 16) (#24)
by j1mmy on Tue Feb 24, 2004 at 09:19:32 PM EST

People who skip breakfast are fucking lame. Substitute exercise for TV time and you'll do a much better job of losing weight while also increasing fitness.

Well... (2.00 / 4) (#72)
by BJH on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:09:33 AM EST

I'm so sorry we don't meet your totally arbitrary standard for non-lameness. Personally, I'd rather get another 30 minutes sleep than stuff my face first thing in the morning.

And how do you manage to link "people who don't eat breakfast" with "people who watch too much TV and don't exercise"?

Logical thought - it's not just for Spock!

--
Roses are red, violets are blue.
I'm schizophrenic, and so am I.
-- Oscar Levant

[ Parent ]

Try going to bed 30 minutes earlier (nt) (1.80 / 5) (#97)
by j1mmy on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:54:39 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Doesn't help me (none / 1) (#164)
by MorePower on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:35:04 PM EST

It doesn't matter much what time I go to bed, I still sleep until the last possible minute anyway. I wish society would change so that it would be possible to get out of bed after sunrise.

[ Parent ]
Seperated at birth? (none / 0) (#257)
by StangDriver on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 06:37:18 PM EST

Start a petition please!

[ Parent ]
Breakfast (none / 1) (#132)
by TheSleeper on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:17:00 AM EST

Stuffing my face first thing in the morning is the major technique I use for ensuring that I don't feel the urge to stuff my face the rest of the day. I load up with a big bacon-and-cheese omlette and a couple of bananas at 8:30 every morning. As a result, at lunch time I'm satisfied with a piece of fruit and some cheese, and at dinner with a simple green salad.

Skip breakfast in favor of a larger lunch and dinner, and I find myself wandering to the kitchen all day long to satisfy snack cravings.

Further, I'm more mentally focused and productive on the big-breakfast plan.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter (none / 1) (#163)
by MorePower on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:31:40 PM EST

It doesn't matter if you get hungry at work though. You're at work! Unless you bring food with you to work, you can't eat anyway! The only flaw in this plan is if your coworkers bring food and and in a sharing mood.

[ Parent ]
Where do you work? (none / 1) (#175)
by Cro Magnon on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:04:33 AM EST

I never heard of a workplace without a bunch of vending machines.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Vending machines rare (none / 1) (#188)
by MorePower on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 07:49:19 PM EST

I work in power plants, mostly ones that are still under contruction. Most of the already finished power plants I go to fix only have a maybe dozen or so regular employees in the plant at any given time.

[ Parent ]
Work? (none / 1) (#181)
by TheSleeper on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 11:17:16 AM EST

There's a kitchen with free snacks at my current workplace, and at most of the jobs I've had.

Where there hasn't been a kitchen, there's been a vending machine, or a nearby convenience store.

[ Parent ]

Free snacks? (none / 1) (#189)
by MorePower on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 07:55:40 PM EST

I have been to some places that have a "put a dollor in the can on the honor system if you take a hot-pocket from the fridge" type setups, but at most of my sites people just bring their own food from home. A few larger sites have vending machines, most of my sites are at least a 20 minute drive from any sort of town with stores. I guess it depends on your line of work.

[ Parent ]
Damn straight! (none / 1) (#150)
by Merc on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:40:31 PM EST

You should eat breakfast, whether you're hungry or not! In fact, you should eat 3 square meals a day, whether you're hungry or not! Listening to your body about when it's hungry? That would never work!



[ Parent ]
Another Thing... (3.00 / 13) (#38)
by thefirelane on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:09:05 AM EST

Why am I not fat?

How old are you?


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
-1, Fattist (2.31 / 16) (#39)
by steve h on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:32:24 AM EST

I'm not fat (I've only ever been slightly overweight at one stage), but for a long time I ate more than I needed, in terms of calories. I don't think that I'm the only person who has only managed to stay slim through good luck and having a healthy metabolism.

Some people just have poor metabolisms and so they get fat from eating the same excessive diet as the rest of us eat. Most people these days eat a very poor, fatty diet, but just some people get fat from it. It's a genetic thing, you can definitely see that some groups (like Pacific Islanders) are more affected than others, and women are more likely to get fat than men.

Exercise is a solution, but the problem is you need a huge amount of exercise to work off any amount of fat. To get rid of 100lbs, you'd need about 1000 hours of very strenuous exercise. Fat is a very efficient way to store energy, so it doesn't come off easily. And toxins build up in fat so you can and should only lose weight gradually.

So, I think this article is unfairly critical towards fat people. Sure, a lot of them are greedy pigs, but some of them just have unluckily efficient metabolisms. I eat a lot better now, but if my metabolism was more efficient at storing excess energy, I could have ended up quite overweight or even obese (scary thought).

"Slow Metabolism" is mostly BS (3.00 / 6) (#100)
by morewhine on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 10:18:11 PM EST

I have a BMI of about 24 (158 lbs., 5' 9" tall).  My dad has a BMI of somewhere around 40+ (he's about 100-120 lbs. overweight).

I grew up watching him eat and sitting around on his ass after work everyday.  It was not a pretty sight.

My brother is about 50 pounds overweight.  Again, I grew up watching HIM eat.  It was not a pretty sight.

My brother's wife is about 200 lbs. overweight (no joke).  I have been out with my brother and his wife numerous times, and have seen how SHE eats.  It was also not a pretty sight.

My mother has a BMI of about 20.  I grew up with her.  I have seen how she eats.

My girlfriend is of normal weight, probably about 22 BMI.  I live with her.  I see how she eats.

Yes, indeed, it is possible to be born with a slow metabolism.  HOWEVER, I do not see how a slow metabolism justifies one to be morbidly obese (like my brother's wife; she is 4' 11" and weighs about 300 lbs.) or extremely obese like my dad is.  

THere gets to be a point where "slow metabolism" HAS to be transcended somehow by SHEER GLUTTONOUS EATING and COMPLETE LAZINESS.

I have always been physically active and watched what I eat.  My mom has never been very physically active but always eats organic, mainly vegetarian foods with very little refined sugar in her diet.  She also limits her portion sizes.

My dad: the exact opposite.  My brother: like my dad, though not quite as bad.

PLEASE PUT DOWN ALL OF THE EXCUSES BECAUSE YOU FEEL SO BAD FOR OBESE PEOPLE.  Sometimes it simply involves an inability for one to control oneself.

[ Parent ]

EATING IS NOT A RATIONAL ACTIVITY. (1.75 / 4) (#101)
by rpresser on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:35:38 PM EST

["You" and "your" in this counter-rant do not necessarily apply specifically to poster of parent, nor to poster of article. Please do not become angry. One of us is enough.]

Not being a perfectly rational being, I behave irrationally sometimes. Often.  Several times a day.  Usually when eating.

I am not stupid. But I behave stupidly.  My behavior is not under control of my reason.

I am not saying that "I have no willpower" absolves me of responsibility.  I accept responsibility for the deplorable condition of my body.

Nevertheless it just isn't as fucking easy as you think it is, you skinny fuck. (Sorry for the profanity, but I think it is a justified response to the article's profanity.) Ever hear the word anxiety? Anxiety isn't just for panic attacks. Anxiety is a major motivator and lies underneath almost every irrational act of every person, IMNSHO.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, obesity is a real problem with real (if sometimes psychological) causes.  It is not just several million people deciding they don't have to take care of themselves.  It is several million people with several million kinds of problems.

I understand that few people have sympathy for those who have not overcome weight problems. I understand that even fewer have sympathy for those who have not really tried (in which category I ashamedly place myself).  But guess what? I didn't ask for your fucking sympathy, advice, or help.  Let me go to hell in my own way, or save myself in my own way, and I will be sure to ignore your failings in return.

I don't care whether you believe me or not.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

gotta agree with this (none / 2) (#172)
by crayz on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 03:11:43 AM EST

My weight has fluctuated within about a 45 pound range, and I can get it down when I really want to, but there's a lot of difficulties and a lot of things pushing you in the wrong direction. Just as some examples in my current life:
  • where I work the cabinets are crammed with junk food I can eat for free, and being a penny-pincher I tend not to buy food from nearby shops
  • in school there are often events with tasty food, free of charge. when you're trying to adhere to a strict diet with very few calories, and you show up at an event with boxes upon boxes of pizza....
  • social situations involve food at least 75% of the time(including alcoholic beverages in the category of "food")
  • I wind up stockpiling food when it goes on sale. the problem is I'll sometimes stockpile somewhat "bad" food during a period where I'm not paying attention to my weight, and then wind up having to choose between eating it and throwing it out during a period where I am trying to slim down
So I agree with you - a lot of people here are trivializing the difficulty of losing weight. That's not to say that I excuse people who are grotesquely overweight. I was at one point probably about 60 pounds overweight, and I'm still disgusted at myself for letting it get to that point. But life just isn't as simple as some here are portraying it. If I had an infinite amount of money and time and could isolate myself from society, I could lose weight very, very quickly. But maintaining a lifestyle where you eat 1/2 what everyone around you does for a significant amount of time is incredibly difficult. And for someone who needs to lose dozens of pounds, a slight 250-500 calorie/day deficit really just isn't going to cut it.

[ Parent ]
Calorie deficit (none / 0) (#200)
by dn on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 07:41:54 PM EST

And for someone who needs to lose dozens of pounds, a slight 250-500 calorie/day deficit really just isn't going to cut it.
A deficit of 250 calories/day is a loss of 26 pounds/year.
But maintaining a lifestyle where you eat 1/2 what everyone around you does for a significant amount of time is incredibly difficult.
Casting the situation as a choice between instant weight loss or no weight loss is a cop out.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

not really (none / 2) (#214)
by crayz on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 02:50:20 AM EST

It's very very hard to keep up a calories deficit for long periods of time with hard-to-see improvements. 26 pounds/year for someone who is 50 pounds overweight? I doubt it. Everyone falls off the diet eventually. The trick is to get low enough that you can fall off, bounce back up only a few pounds, and then give yourself a last little kick to stabilize and then maintain your desired weight.

But if you "fall off" the diet for a couple days at 1000 calories over(which is not at all difficult to do), you're now over a week away from getting back down. These kinds of setbacks are really difficult to deal with in the real world.

IMO, the real way to do a diet is to set a strict calorie limit about 750-1000 calories below your burn rate and stick with this almost as if you were going cold turkey from the old eating habits. Work out as much as you can, don't weigh yourself more than once every 2 weeks, and if you fall off on one day, admit to yourself that you are, allow yourself to do it, and start right back the next day.

1000 calories/day is like 10 pounds/month. Add a little exercise and you'll easily see 15 drop in the first month(part of this is a quick starting drop from losing water weight) and 10-12 in following months. Seeing real quick results like this help you to know you're making progress and stick with something that is very difficult to do.

Also, my absolute best advice to anyone trying to diet is very simple: don't buy the food you shouldn't be eating. Buy food that's as low-calorie and filling as possible. Buy food that takes a while to make, including hopefully some work on your part. Stuff like this can give you that push you need to say "ehh never mind the food" instead of grabbing a bag of potato chips for an easy pigout session. You'll also decrease your desire for junk food about 95% if it's not around you.

[ Parent ]

Bah (none / 1) (#226)
by dn on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 09:38:45 PM EST

IMO, the real way to do a diet is to set a strict calorie limit about 750-1000 calories below your burn rate and stick with this almost as if you were going cold turkey from the old eating habits.
That's just another fad diet:  Eat painfully little, lose a major amount of muscle, and learn nothing about eating well. The data show that it results in sustained weight loss in few people, and long term fat gain in most.
It's very very hard to keep up a calories deficit for long periods of time with hard-to-see improvements.
The laws of thermodynamics are cruel. The only way to keep weight off is to learn to manage very small daily calorie differences. The challenge is not to learn how to sprint towards thin land, but to avoid walking back to lard land one tiny step at a time.
But if you "fall off" the diet for a couple days at 1000 calories over(which is not at all difficult to do), you're now over a week away from getting back down.
You can only fall off a fad diet. With healthy eating, you either choose to eat less later, or you choose to gain weight.
These kinds of setbacks are really difficult to deal with in the real world.
It's not a setback: it's a choice to go on a "healthy eating vacation". Like any other vacation, you'll suffer for going too far or too often.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

Penny pinching.. (none / 0) (#212)
by Rainy on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:26:42 AM EST

Give that up. Health is your billion-dollar non-liquid property. Some healthy food is cheap.. like apples, bananas and oatmeal (no sugar, steeped covered in boiled water, with raisins and dried pineapples and papayas). Rather, I think, sometimes addiction to crap food likes to pose as frugality.
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]
Hey, asshole (none / 0) (#194)
by morewhine on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:14:28 AM EST

I've gotten depressed several times in the past and literally binged on horrible junk food for a week at a time and gained quite a lot of weight (about 5-7 pounds per time).  

The point is that I didn't freak out about it and then regained control.  This hasn't happened very often in the past (probably five or six times in my life) but I do gain weight VERY EASILY when I decide to sit on my ass and eat nothing but absolute junk food.

Now, I have to say this: compulsive overeating is a MENTAL disorder.  

I say this because I have seen how my dad and my brother's wife gulps down food as if it was a narcotic.  They also coincidentally seem to have very, very low levels of self-esteem.

Find some other outlet for anger than food and you may lose some weight (and keep it off).

There are obvious metabolism differences between different people.  However, I don't see how metabolism makes up for the fact that I consume about 2,200 -2,500 calories per day while my dad MUST be eating around 5,000. (I'm talking those 500 calorie little pies from 7-11 all of the time, junk food in the form of entire bags of chips, cookies, chocolate, etc. etc.)

I KNOW IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT YOUR BEHAVIOR BUT YOU SIMPLY MUST TO FREE YOURSELF FROM YOUR ADDICTION TO FOOD.

[ Parent ]

your wrong (none / 0) (#114)
by Cackmobile on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:35:31 AM EST

I am 6' 4" and I am overweight. My best friend is 5'4" and skinny as. We live together and he eats as much if not more than me.

[ Parent ]
In your house (none / 1) (#121)
by yet another coward on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:56:25 AM EST

Do you obey the laws of thermodynamics?

I do not understand how people come to believe, more or less, that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to human bodies. Rates of metabolism make very little sense. The relevant factors are the amount of energy input and the amount of energy output. Some of the energy is lost as heat. This heat loss keeps our bodies near 37 C. We do have some strategies for regulating how quickly we lose heat. The other energy from food either fuels work or gets stored.

There are strategies for increasing work done, such as exercise, and for consuming less, such as smaller meals, lower calorie foods, foods with more volume for the amount of energy and foods that are more satiating.

Even knowing the facts, dieting can be very trying for some people. There are many false beliefs about the basic facts of eating, however, that harm weight loss efforts.

[ Parent ]

Thermodynamics (none / 0) (#146)
by Eccles on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:41:54 PM EST

Do you obey the laws of thermodynamics?

Of course. Ever see how some skinny people fidget? Ever have the kids bouncing off the walls? Also, body temperature can vary, and can vary in different parts of the body. There can be a significant variation in how much energy people burn over the course of the day despite apparently similar levels of activity.

The fundamental problem, though, is hunger. People who've had their stomach stapled can't eat as much, and their stomach tells them they're full sooner, so they lose weight. There's a recently discovered hormone PYY3-36 that has shown significant effects in reducing hunger. Reduce my hunger and I will lose weight, without question.

(See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994129 regarding that hormone.)

[ Parent ]
It's more than Thermodynamics (none / 1) (#170)
by Kuwanger on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 12:30:14 AM EST

The fact is, not only do people move different amounts, have slightly higher or lower metabolisms, but they also have different rates of absorption. This latter fact is often the result of a person eatting too quickly or swallowing significant enough amounts of air to cause them to feel fuller sooner as well as "process" food quicker. I know from personal experience that if I eat until I feel stuffed, I end up feeling pain because of the delayed time between my stomach being stuffed and me overstuffing it. The last part is what causes me to slightly under eat whenever I eat. At the same time, consuming water or some low-calorie drink with near every bite will make you eat less and gain less weight as the density of calories in low-cal drinks is a lot less than most all foods. Now, all of the above doesn't compensate for things like snacking between meals, not feeling hungry soon enough (thanks to years of overstuffing stretching one's stomach), or simply eatting the fattest or most sugar laden foods available. And if you're doing all of the above and still not losing weight, eat less and/or exercise more. So, I agree fundamental with the thermodynamics angle. Just like with breasts (another fat location) or height (based on growth hormones), genetics only are a disposition towards some outcome. Consumption is the deciding factor on reaching that goal. And obviously, just consuming lots of food won't let you go over some genetic limitation either.

[ Parent ]
Hey, you (none / 1) (#193)
by morewhine on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:07:40 AM EST

Jesus christ, I have witnessed the amount of food intake between myself, my mother, my father, and my brother.

The obviously conclusion: they not only eat slightly more than I do, but they literally pig the fuck out on gross amounts of really unhealthy food.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are obviously different types of metabolisms.  But do you honestly think that a slow vs. fast metabolism will make up the difference between a 2,200 and 4000-5000 calorie daily intake?

You must have SOME inkling of an idea that somehow, perhaps, metabolism can't overcome such a gross sum of food intake combined with laziness and sloth.

FOr example, I have gained considerable weight in the past WHEN I HAVE GOTTEN DEPRESSED AND PIGGED OUT FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND SAT ON MY ASS, as an example.  I gain weight relatively easily.  Guess what?  I have a BMI of 24 because I actually have control and don't freak out if I occasionlly pig out and gain a few pounds.  

Yes, this IS a "holier-than-thou" post.  My dad literally sat on his ass and poured junk down this throat everynight.  It certainly is not surprising that he is so damned overweight.

[ Parent ]

Hey, you, too (none / 1) (#224)
by Kuwanger on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 04:00:00 PM EST

> But do you honestly think that a slow vs. fast metabolism will make up the difference between a 2,200 and 4000-5000 calorie daily intake?

No, and I never suggested to the contrary.  You're confusing metabolism for absorption.  Some people (me, included) just don't absorb fat as effectively as other people.  This means that it's likely I can eat more calorie intake on the sacale of 1-5% versus other people without gaining weight faster than them.  If I were to consume on the scale of 25% or more fat than them, I would of course be a fatter than them.

The whole point of my post was that looking at other people and saying they can eat X amount of food means you can too and look just like them.  Genetics mean you should eat *less*, more often than more.  And just so you know, I have a BMI of around 19.

Most people learn what is a sufficient amount of food to eat from their family.  This, along with the stomach stretching I mentioned, sets a precedent for eating behavior.  The only way to correct this is to work at it.  Eating too much food is like any other bad habit, it requires a good of effort to unlearn and might take a lifetime to maintain.

[ Parent ]

I've seen comparisons too (none / 0) (#240)
by Cro Magnon on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 10:36:36 AM EST

I know someone's who's obese. And she eats about the same amount as I do. I'm not a small person; 6'1" 205 pounds and a BMI of 27, but she's quite a bit heavier on the same amount of food. I do more exersize than she, but not much more in the winter. And most of her family is large too. Genetics/metabolism makes a BIG difference.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Eating usually NOT related to hunger (none / 1) (#182)
by hatshepsut on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 02:30:35 PM EST

There are way too many people (and I include myself) who eat when they are not hungry. They eat when they are bored, they eat when they watch TV, they eat when they are depressed or anxious, they eat at the same time every day regardless of whether they are hungry, etc. etc.

If you don't overeat regularly, your stomach isn't very big to start with (kind of like having it stapled, only much healthier) and you will feel full sooner into a meal. Overeating is what stretches your stomach in the first place. Cutting back on the amount you eat will cause it to go back to a more "normal" size. Stapling merely causes the shrinkage to occur instantly, without the tiresome necessity of learning to control your eating habits...

If you only get the urge to eat when you are hungry, you are luckier than the average person. Most people, at least sometimes, will have dessert even if they aren't hungry, will snack at the movie theatre, drink sugary (therefore high calorie) beverages, etc. When this behaviour gets out of control, so does body weight.

[ Parent ]

Bzzt! Wrong! (none / 0) (#142)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:54:15 PM EST

In my youth, I was UNDERweight, and I ate more than any 3 fat people I knew.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
not gentic, but caused by dieting (none / 1) (#198)
by dlec on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 01:17:37 AM EST

Slow metabolism does happen but it isn't genetic. It's actually caused by starving yourself (dieting), where the body thinks that there must be some famine and so it should do it's best to use less energy and retain existing fat.

So you get a slow metabolism by eating too much and getting fat, then dieting to get rid of it. People that eat mainly processed foods will never get rid of it, since those diets are usually nutritionally deficient, and even though you are eating all day, you, and your body, are always hungry.

It's easy to get rid of though, just do an intensive aerobic exercise program (any exercise that knackers you out in a few minutes). At the same time, don't starve yourself, but eat all the salads, fruits, and teas you need to stop from feeling hungry. Some people say it is bad to lose weight too quickly, but the key is actually that your body should choose to lose the weight (excessive nutrition), rather than you forcing it (mal-nutrition).

In this way you will have more nutrition in your body than ever before so your body will think the good times are here and start shedding fat, but the calories will be very low so you will lose wait like crazy without causing your body to go into famine mode, and slow the metabolism down.

It's like signal to noise ratio. But in this case nutrition to calories ratio. Calories have no value whatsoever, and you will die more quickly by eating a food with no nutritonal value but high calories, rather than eating no food at all. This has been observed to be the case. The highest nutrition to calories ratio is from uncooked vegetables (salad), fruit and fish.

Eating only raw foods is very hard, so have a salad sandwich for lunch (addictive and very tasty), and a salad with some lightly steamed vegetables (e.g. potatoes) for dinner. Also, keep a store of low fat seeds (like sunflower seeds around, so you can eat all day if you feel hungry).

The hardest thing to get over will be your sugar addiction. Sugar is incredibly addictive since it casues a sugar rush which feels great (too much sugar, not enough insulin), followed by an insulin rush your body uses to recover from this dangerous situation, leaving you feeling low and needing more sugar to balance the low sugar levels. This is a chemical addiction like tobacco or heroine, and is hard to kick. Use juicy sweet fruits to give you the sugar but with much less of an insulin kick back (slower more controlled sugar release), and reduce the amounts until it is no longer necesarry.


[ Parent ]

Where you may be wrong (none / 1) (#211)
by Rainy on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:15:56 AM EST

Imagine someone who hasn't had a good counter-example like you did. They get overweight thinking they can lose it easily. After all, thermodynamics. Wrong. There's also psychology, anxiety and addiction. Did you ever wonder why sometimes you have a person lying in his own shit and piss and not even bothering to get up and cross the room for a more habitable corner, because of their extreme heroin addiction?

I think the quintessential mistake of critics is to think to themselves "*I* manage to keep fit without much effort and I don't even have a strong stimuli for that.. If I weighted much more, I'd be disgusted with myself and I'd spent far more effort trying to fix that lamentable state I'm in and of course manage it in no time."

Bad mistake here. It's much easier to maintain healthy weight than to get back to it. A disease has its momentum, both in body and in psyche. Your will power is sapped because it takes root in healthy body & mind. Anxiety and depression increase, and you know the medicine. Efforts to stop it backfire: starved body conserves energy and uses the first chance to 'restock'.

I'm not overweight myself and almost certainly will never be. But we should all know that the only difficult thing on earth is addiction, to any sensual pleasure. If you think it's very easy, why aren't you a god or something? Nothing should be difficult for you :-).
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]

Article is right (none / 2) (#125)
by koreth on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:34:25 AM EST

If so many fat people are that way because they have slow metabolisms, why are obesity rates skyrocketing in just about every major industrialized country? Are people's metabolisms just slowing down en masse all of a sudden? Some kind of spontaneous genetic drift? I don't buy it.

I pretty much agree with the article here. I went from nearly 200 to just under 160 a few years ago by limiting my daily calorie intake and exercising every day. No fancy combinations of foods, no high-protein-low-carb menus, no special shakes, just good old-fashioned self-discipline. It's annoying and difficult, but it works and it's free of charge and available to everyone.

If you spend more calories than you eat, you lose weight, end of story. Your genetics influence how many calories that is, but nobody has a genetic background that will cause them to be big as a house on, say, 300 calories a day over an extended period. (For example. Obviously you wouldn't want to go that low, but the point is that if you did, you *would* lose weight no matter what.)

[ Parent ]

There's this really fat woman where I work. (2.73 / 19) (#41)
by Kasreyn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:31:48 AM EST

Heck of a nice person, but she affects tides. Anyway, she's always eating that low-carb health-food stuff.

As in ALWAYS EATING IT. Not only at lunch, but on every break period and often at her work station, also before clocking in. Whereas I eat a single hearty meal of junk food, and nothing else the entire time I'm there. (Note: she weighs as much as three of me. I'm serious.)

Sometimes I wonder at the mental disconnect that makes people think "diet food" is a magical charm that still allows them to engage their peristaltic muscles for 16 hours out of every day.

For that matter, how the hell can they charge more for diet food than for real food? Diet food is either a scam (doesn't help you lose weight), or it's less nutritious (fake food, eases pangs without adding lard). So if it's got less qualitative value than real food, why's it cost more? That really bugs me.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
It costs more... (2.00 / 5) (#63)
by skyknight on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:24:16 AM EST

because the advertising hype to brainwash people into buying food that tastes awful takes money.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Not really. (2.92 / 13) (#78)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:42:07 PM EST

Think of it more as attempting to manage an addiction.

About 6 years ago, I clocked in at 310 pounds - after a solid decade of trying to control my weight through diet and exercise. But when my second kid was born, I got fanatical about it - liquid diets, aerobics and what was (for me) the final break through - weightlifting.

Over several years I took off 90 pounds, got the point I could run three miles (not quickly, mind you, but at least without stopping).

But during that entire time, I never stopped thinking about food. Constantly. Continuously. What I should be eating. What I wasn't eating. Ways to game the system so I could eat a little more.

About two years ago I got to the point where I was nearly a "functional" bulemic - I'd pig out and then go nuts exercising to burn it off. When I hurt my knee and couldn't run anymore - well, over the past two years I put 20 pounds back on.

So, now I'm back on the diet, back weight lifting, back struggling with even how I know, I know, I'm eating too much, I'll still realize I just ate half a box of breakfast cereal before I stopped myself.

So, WTF you gonna do? I substitute - instead of eating, I flood my body with water. I eat the diet shakes and megavitamins to try to stay healthy.

And I think about food.

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
You have my sympathy. :-\ -nt (none / 1) (#81)
by Kasreyn on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 01:10:15 PM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Sir (none / 2) (#130)
by sllort on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:10:25 AM EST

If your knees are shot, and you wish to substitute something for running, might I suggest cycling. It's easy on the knees for those of heft. Allow me to warn you now that all the nice bikes in the shop are not for you. As a heavier person, you're going to need much stronger parts to keep your bike from getting destroyed. Also let me recommend mountain biking as you don't have to wear lots of clingy spandex and you don't have to cope with cars.

Buy a "hardtail" (front-suspended) bike with "14-gauge, 3-cross-laced wheels", a "marzocchi (COIL NOT AIR)", and preferably a reynolds 853 steel frame. You don't need to understand all this, the bike shop will. Alternately, try to find a store that will sell you a Bianchi Superbee.

Additionally use this to find your nearest trail system, then talk to people at the trailhead and learn by doing. Repeat often.

Good luck.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Cycling is a blast. (none / 1) (#153)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:03:06 PM EST

I agree.

It's my summer exercise now. Fortunately there's a long trail near my home - it runs from within a few miles of my house, down through Valley Forge and into Philadelphia. Like my running, I don't go very fast - but I don't stop either.

Bad News: it doesn't seem to rip the calories off me quite the way running did. But the good news is that I enjoy it so much I do it for fun, as opposed to running which I did out of bloody minded determination.

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
Hell YA (none / 1) (#177)
by sllort on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:35:59 AM EST

Ride it like you stole it bro.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
A motto for life itself. (none / 0) (#179)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 11:09:56 AM EST

:-)

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
weightlifting (none / 1) (#137)
by TheBeardedScorpion on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:36:44 PM EST

But when my second kid was born, I got fanatical about it - liquid diets, aerobics and what was (for me) the final break through - weightlifting.

I wanted to second you comment on weightlifting. I used to be fat and then I started lifting weights. It was much more effective than running or riding a stationary bike.



[ Parent ]
For me, the clue came when (none / 0) (#154)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:05:11 PM EST

I realized that I would lose 30 pounds, put it back on, and be wider around than when I first started.

Unlike anything else, lifting makes sure I burn fat instead of muscle.

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
Hear ya (none / 0) (#210)
by Rainy on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:01:43 AM EST

I'm underweight myself, but I believe that being overweight is the same as being addicted to almost any other drug. Perhaps it's even harder, at least with smokes you can cut them off completely, but food is something you *have* to have, and it will always tempt you. Critics have their own addictions (as I do) and they will not know until they (addictions) fuck them good and hard.

Anyway, keep a-trying.. Introspect. If you control your mind, you control your tongue. Burning extra calories away is only a temprorary measure, IMHO. This may be a more psychological dependancy than you think. Do you combine food & something else like TV or computer? Divide and conquer. Can you give up added salt and sugar for two months? They throw off our natural mechanisms for telling if a certain food is proper or not. E.g. you eat a spoon of sugar and then eat an apple. Apple tastes anemic. Your tongue adjusted for sugar over-sweetness and will not take any healthy food readily.

It's not always best to try to break a wall with your forehead, show some cunning and cleverness.. introspection is your only friend.
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]

In agreement. (none / 0) (#131)
by SlashRaid on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:15:03 AM EST

I often find it comical when said folks come into the lunch room with a Big Mac, fries, an additional cheese burger, and of course a diet Coke.

[ Parent ]
Taste (none / 0) (#171)
by ShadowNode on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 01:12:02 AM EST

Some people prefer diet Coke.

[ Parent ]
Nothing silly about that. (none / 0) (#199)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 05:59:13 AM EST

They don't sell diet fries or Big Macs you know. It's called comprimise.

[ Parent ]
Moomun Says (1.46 / 15) (#53)
by moomun on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:09:11 AM EST

If you want to lose weight do it the fun Moomun way:

Lots of Hot Gay (unprotected) Sex with many partners.

Eventually you will get aids. Now you will lose fat like a champion and can eat what you want, bevcause you will chuck it up anyway.

Weight problem solved.

Note that if you have an aversion to HGS, you can also use the same plan in a hetero way - just that acquisition of the all important AIDS beasties might take longer.

This way you can continue to support our great american companies such as Coca Cola and McDonalds  and help us win the war against terror, whilst remaining super slim.

<M>

Awfully pointless advise. (2.20 / 5) (#89)
by tkatchev on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:44:04 PM EST

Getting hooked on heroin would acheive the same much easier.

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

But that misses out the most important thing (none / 1) (#110)
by moomun on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:03:01 AM EST

I bet you can't guess what that is?

Btw Could I interest you in some Hot Gay Sex?

<M>

[ Parent ]

Liquid protein diet (2.80 / 5) (#62)
by steve h on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 07:16:55 AM EST

Are you talking about the fad diet from the late 1970s, popularized by the book "Last Chance Diet"? The individuals in question died of ventricular fibrillation, not of malnutrition. It is suspected that disease occurred because of the poor quality of the protein. It had nothing to do with an inadequate intake of carbohydrates, fat, vitamins, minerals or micronutrients.

Modern liquid protein diets use higher quality protein, and studies have shown that dieters on very low calorie liquid protein diets (800 cal) have less mortality than obese controls, although they may suffer from a range of minor health problems.

That poll needs changed. (1.20 / 10) (#68)
by ShiftyStoner on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:42:36 AM EST

 For us americans it is normal to be fat. Those of us who have a healthy weight are the minorety.
( @ )'( @ ) The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. - Adolf Hitler
Americans are fat. (3.00 / 16) (#71)
by sllort on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 10:42:55 AM EST

Americans eat a lot of sugar. Specifically, they eat a lot of "high fructose corn syrup". I've always wondered if this was related to the fatness.

Take the 7-11 challenge.

Go into 7-11 and try to buy something that doesn't contain sugar. Now, I'm disallowing all the fruit ("natural" sugar - whatever) and the hard boiled eggs (their sugar-egg injection process isn't online yet), because I've done this already and I want to make sure you fail.

So what does have sugar in it?
The ketchup
The burritos
The sandwiches (all of them)
The peanut butter
The hot dogs (YES EVEN THE SPICY BITE! FUCK!) < had to ask for their FDA info on that stuff
The beef jerky
The cough remedies
The potato chips, the corn chips, and all the other chips
The low-carb bars, the protein bars, well - the bars.
The soup. ALL THE SOUP.
The candy. I hate to mention this, but it's half the store.
Anything with the word "breakfast" in it (all the breakfast sandwiches, the muffins, the bagels, the doughnuts, etc.).

I guess what I'm getting at here is that there's sugar hidden in everything. Every pizza you've ever ordered out, every sandwich Jared ever ate at Subway, all packed with sugar.

And sugar can double the calories of a food while making you hungrier than before you ate it.

If you want to feel alienated for a week in the States, try to live like a diabetic and eat no sugar. Basically you can't eat anything. Why is there so much sugar? Is it a preservative? Does it keep the bugs from eating the bread?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.

unless you are diabetic (2.00 / 4) (#76)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:47:18 AM EST

You NEED sugar you fool!

Granted, you don't need as much of it as we get, but just like anything else, it should not be completely cut from a diet.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Guess what! (none / 3) (#80)
by it certainly is on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 12:56:34 PM EST

You need sugar... and everything has sugar, some things with additional processeed sugar added to the natural sugars! Manufacturers use it to make snacks foods "taste yummier" and make "guilt free" frankenfood that has "less fat", but the authentic fat has been replaced with modified sugar that acts like fat -- look at that batshit olestra.

Junk food will still be junk food, no matter what hideous perversions of science the manufacturers use. You are not chemically addicted to it. You can stop eating it. You have a psychological craving to familiar packets of handy snacks, one which can be broken. There are other delicious foods in this world, go find them. Fruit, nuts, pasta, fish, vegetables, meats, dairy products. Mix and match them. Have a tuna and sweetcorn sandwich in a wholemeal bap. Cut up apple segments and dip them in Greek yoghurt and honey. Slice up a white bread baton and dip in a swirling of extra virgin olive oil and balsamic vinegar, perhaps with some herbs. Eat kiwi fruit and cheese on rice crackers. Mix penne pasta, diced chicken, diced red peppers and pesto sauce, or make your own. Keep a tub or two in the fridge for when you're peckish. Mix your own nuts and raisins. Eat puffed rice cereal without the extra honey or sugar added. There are so many delicious treats that are part of a balanced diet, you just have to be willing to try something that isn't stamped with a brand name.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Guess what yourself. (none / 3) (#102)
by rpresser on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 11:40:15 PM EST

You do NOT need sugar.  You NEVER need sugar. You do need some carbohydrate. But the body is perfectly happy making blood glucose from starches and other, more complex carbohydrates. It would be perfectly happy if you got it all from 100% polysaccharide (if there were such a food).
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Mmmmm.... Greek yoghurt and honey...... (nt) (none / 0) (#115)
by Nursie on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:49:22 AM EST



Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
Yes, you need sugars. (none / 1) (#82)
by sllort on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:28:42 PM EST

I should define terms. I don't mean "sugars" on the FDA label, which can be naturally occurring. I mean sugar added. All of the foods I listed have bleached, artificial sugar added to them.

Adding high fructose corn syrup to a food does not make it healthier. I challenge you to find a food at 7-11, other than the hardboiled eggs & the fruit, that does not have sugar added.

Good luck.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

"Natural" sugar is just as bad (none / 1) (#83)
by welkin on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 02:58:53 PM EST

There is no difference in how bad it is for you. Also, I don't know when the last time you made bread, or looked at a recipe for bread, but yeast _needs_ sugar. If you want sugar free bread, afaik you'll have to eat either flat bread, or bread that's leavened without yeast. There's probably more sugar added than is needed, but bread does NEED sugar added.

We need carbs, complex carbs like dietary fibre, and simple carbs like sugar and simple starches. But as the author of this fine article so eloquently states, if you eat too much of it you'll get fucking fat!

Diabetics need sugar too. People with type one diabetes have to get insulin injections so they can digest the sugar they need, and people with type two diabetes need to manage their sugar intake and only sometimes need insulin injecitons. There are two hazards of being a diabetic: you can go into a coma and die if your blood sugar is too high, or you can go into a coma and die if your blood sugar is too _low_. Diabetics carry candy with them to eat if they start to feel warning signs.

It's good to take an interest in what you're eating, but please do a bit of research so that you're not just spreading FUD.

[ Parent ]
kuron> (none / 3) (#88)
by sllort on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 04:20:43 PM EST

http://www.drmirkin.com/diabetes/7942.htm
http://www.rense.com/general45/sguar.htm

"Added sugar is more unhealthful than sugar in fruit such as raisins, or in root vegetables such as beets. Sugar that is bound up with the fiber in fruits and vegetables takes much longer to digest than sugars which have been extracted from their plant source -- sugar cane, sugar beets, fruits, trees or flowers (that includes honey and maple syrup). When you eat, your blood sugar rises. Refined sugar in foods and drinks causes blood sugar levels to rise quickly, causing your body to increase production of insulin which acts on your brain to make you hungry, so you eat more and on your liver to cause it to make more fat."

M.D. means "more important than stupid kuron". I looked it up on Wikipedia.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

bread (none / 3) (#108)
by ekj on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:41:20 AM EST

Quatsch, as they would say here. I do make bread. Every week infact. I never add processed sugars, and it works out perfectly fine.

Normal flour contains plenty of carbs simple enough that the yeast is happy processing it.

Bread does not need sugar added. Never was needed, never will be needed.



[ Parent ]

Easy - porn, cigs, lottery tickets (nt) (none / 1) (#91)
by scruffyMark on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 05:06:37 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure there's sugar in there (none / 2) (#127)
by sllort on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:42:03 AM EST

Sweet, sweet brown sugar.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Beer (nt) (none / 2) (#98)
by ucblockhead on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 08:27:19 PM EST


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
bzzt (none / 0) (#140)
by bandy on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:08:34 PM EST

Actually, there are sugars left over in the beer that the yeastie beasties didn't ferment.
Marlboro: War ich Rindveh bin.
[ Parent ]
Alcoholic beverage ingredients (none / 0) (#237)
by wurp on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 03:13:14 PM EST

I challenge you to find the ingredients on a bottle of beer.  AFAICT no alcoholic drinks are required to list ingredients.

If you can't find out the ingredients, you don't know wtf is in it.
---
Buy my stuff
[ Parent ]

Pork rinds /nt (none / 1) (#99)
by big fat idiot on Wed Feb 25, 2004 at 09:41:15 PM EST



[ Parent ]
The mistake: (none / 2) (#116)
by tjost on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:51:45 AM EST

Expecting to find real food in a 7-11.

[ Parent ]
Big corn industry in the US (3.00 / 4) (#124)
by fridgemagnet on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:50:27 AM EST

...got to get rid of it all somehow.

I can't stand it. I moved here from the UK and eating a similar diet involving a similar amount of similar junk and processed food means I've put on at least a stone. Because it's all got sugar in it. I have to buy everything fresh.

Tinned tomatoes have corn syrup in them, it's number three in the ingredients after "tomatoes" and "tomato juice".

When I went back to the UK for Christmas I felt really weird and caught myself eating chocolates without thinking; differences in blood sugar from the diet I'd got accustomed to.

---
"bugler of incongruity"


[ Parent ]
This is how I first noticed it (none / 3) (#128)
by sllort on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:44:32 AM EST

It was when I travelled to Europe, and I ate like a fiend and I kept losing weight. I was like "what the fuck, heroin in the water?". And yes, they do put heroin in the water, at least in London, but that's not the point.

It's all the damn refined sugar, and the flourides, invading our precious bodily fluids.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Yeah (none / 3) (#221)
by Legato Bluesummers on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 01:46:34 PM EST

In the U.S., the reason why we use corn syrup for everything is that the anti-free trade fuckers in our government put tariffs and restrictions on cane sugar imports. Thus, we need to use corn syrup for everything.

If you've ever tasted a Coke in Mexico, you'd see that can sugar tastes loads better than corn syrup. I doubt that it is healthier, though.

I imagine sugar is added to everything just to make it taste better and encourage more binge eating. If I have a bag of chips with sugar, I will eat a lot. My blood sugar will rise, giving me a sugar high. Then the insulin will kick in, and I'll be hungrier than before, and eat more chips...
--And many people have ended up looking very stupid, or dead, or both.
[ Parent ]

how many people (none / 2) (#133)
by nutcake on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 11:42:47 AM EST

actually cook their own dinners instead of getting pre-prepared shit?
-- The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice. -- Mark Twain
[ Parent ]
How many people either (none / 2) (#152)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:50:16 PM EST

(a) get home from work early enough to invest 45 minutes in cooking a real meal from scratch or,

(b) have a stay-at-home spouse who will have dinner ready for them when they get home?

(b) is the reason so few Americans cook. When you both stagger into the house at 6:30 or 7 PM, WTF is going to cook?

--
"telling an obese person to just eat less is like telling an asthmatic to just breathe better."


[ Parent ]
Get home from work? (none / 2) (#165)
by MorePower on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:53:48 PM EST

(a) get home from work early enough to invest 45 minutes in cooking a real meal from scratch

Hell I don't even get home from work on a regular basis. I spend most of my time living in hotel rooms. Sometimes they have kitchenettes, but I can't count on it. I don't even own a refridgerator, the few occations I am home it doesn't occur to me to break my habbit of always eating out.

[ Parent ]
And when you eat out, (none / 2) (#180)
by sllort on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 11:16:10 AM EST

You need to know what to expect. So you go to a chain. And all the chains want to overfeed you. They've even formed a massive lobbying effort to defend their right to do it.

www.consumerfreedom.com

How you can you be free if you don't have the choice not to consume?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

That site is hilarious. (none / 1) (#183)
by treetops on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 04:16:01 PM EST

it makes me want to eat a whole cow. for freedom.
--tt
[ Parent ]
Overfeeding (none / 3) (#190)
by MorePower on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:12:38 PM EST

The best rule of thumb I've come up with for eating out is to assume every restaurant meal is actually two meals and get a take-out box for half of it right away when you order it. Now if I could just force myself to do that more regularly.....

[ Parent ]
i got thrree (none / 1) (#168)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:05:39 PM EST

  1. water
  2. diet soda
  3. Salad ... vegetables not fruits
what do i win ?
Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]
Good point. (none / 2) (#176)
by sllort on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:29:10 AM EST

But they do put sugar in their salads, it's in the dressing.

And I'd argue that the diet soda jacks your glycemic index just as badly. I've tested this using a diabetic's skin-jabber kit: take your blood sugar, sit around for an hour, take your blood sugar. Next day, take your blood sugar, drink a Diet Coke, sit around for an hour, take your blood sugar. I've repeated this experiment about five times with both Splenda and Nutrasweet, and the differences are gigantic - from around 80-90 without diet soda to 150 with.

YMMV.

However water is the one thing I buy at 7/11 when I have to. Take a bow.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

control (none / 0) (#231)
by BCoates on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:32:50 AM EST

Have you tried it with an equal quantity of seltzer (water, carbonation, flavoring, no sweetener)?

[ Parent ]
Damnit that's a good idea (none / 0) (#234)
by sllort on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 10:06:06 AM EST

I'd been using water as a control, but I need to use carbonated water because of the acidity.

Fuck, thanks, will do.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Salt (none / 1) (#209)
by Rainy on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:44:31 AM EST

Is no better. In fact, I believe it's much worse.. It may not add fat directly, but it makes you eat more, it will throw off your natural taste for proper food (vegetables will seem tasteless, sugar does similar thing to the taste of fruits), and salt incites passion and emotions = will make you irritable, distracted, etc.

This is not a simple math problem. An indirect cause may be far more important than direct one. You can have a chain reaction of salt -> irritation -> anger -> argument -> depression -> food as a fix. It may not, of course, and then again it may vary from person to another.

This is just a commentary on how many here seem to either treat this as a straight physical law at play (Thermodynamics, they say, hehe), or as a vague unapproachable fatum-like entity like metabolism. Don't discount indirect psychological, hard to deal with and yet precise causes that can be addressed.

For me this is theory, though - I've never been fat, almost certainly never will be (I maintain a very healthy diet for my yoga sadhana and enjoy it.) I never lived with overweight people, so this is all just theory.
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]

+1, FP (1.50 / 4) (#105)
by debillitatus on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:22:19 AM EST

Keep 'em coming.

On another note, I don't know that I've ever seen so many votes cast regarding a story. IIRC, there were 544 votes cast! And the score is still a number close to 0... Heh. Joyce has his fans, and obviously has his freaks as well.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!

Be careful (1.14 / 7) (#109)
by Anjin on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:55:20 AM EST

I'm sure rusty will ban any account that votes a +1 on this. Here goes nothing..

"The problem of whether invisible men exist is a thorny one. We simply don't know, because they are invisible." - Morkney
IAWTP (1.00 / 6) (#117)
by daragh on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:53:32 AM EST

n/t

No work.

Hidden Bias (2.00 / 5) (#120)
by jotango on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 08:49:49 AM EST

Taking a test to see how you react to overweight people is quite interesting. You can take them online at http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/02.html.

By the way, the test suggested I react positively to overweight people. Intuitively, I would say this is wrong. What about your results?

I react negatively to disabled people (none / 0) (#139)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:56:24 PM EST

I already knew that. What I didn't know is that my "data suggest a slight automatic association between Female and Science". I find that interesting.

[ Parent ]
Interesting tests (none / 2) (#143)
by celeriac on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:06:33 PM EST

Why do they think a D-cell Maglite is a "Harmless object" and not a "weapon?"

I think the test result depends strongly on the order in which you go through the sets. They claim to correct for this, but I doubt that different people have the same correcting factors.

[ Parent ]

Since when is it bad and wrong (none / 1) (#191)
by Lord of Caustic Soda on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:27:55 PM EST

To be a bit biased against obese people?

[ Parent ]
Can you explain your bias? (none / 1) (#207)
by rpresser on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:40:32 PM EST

Please, I await edification. Why should you be biased against obese people?  What harm have they done you?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Deep down inside... (none / 1) (#215)
by Lord of Caustic Soda on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 06:25:40 AM EST

I'm afraid they might eat me.

[ Parent ]
Might be best if one did [nt] (none / 0) (#229)
by rpresser on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 12:24:24 AM EST


------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Well I just have to ask... (none / 0) (#232)
by Lord of Caustic Soda on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 04:00:02 AM EST

How tall are you and how much do you weigh?

[ Parent ]
If you need to know, figure it out (none / 0) (#235)
by rpresser on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 01:16:23 PM EST

Others here, starting with no more knowledge of me than you have, already made some conclusions on this.

However, your question implies to me that you will immediately disregard everything I say once you find out. So why should I tell you?

I have classed you as an unperson based on what you say.  You will class me as an unperson based on how I look.  Who gets the prize?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

PC (none / 1) (#245)
by jotango on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 04:23:34 AM EST

I know this is extremely politically incorrect etc.

Obese people do not live the lifestyle I do. I associate obeseness with laziness and little self-control. Additionally, motivation seems to be challenged.

I know this probably is not true for all the active, healthy, sexy, whatever obese people out there, but that is my stereotype, which makes life simpler. Sorry.

[ Parent ]

Why is the food pyramid a GOOD guideline? (2.80 / 5) (#123)
by fruitbane on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:13:08 AM EST

Our current food pyramid was designed years ago and clearly ignores some areas and inflates others in ways that are tantamount to industry pandering. There is a better, alternative food pyramid based on years of research and thousands of study participants noted in the latest Discover magazine. Anytime someone says to stock up on ramen noodles and baked beans and just be lazy you know that they are headed for a rought road ahead. Get to your 40s and 50s and try doing that. Your body will collapse. The key to a diet is to ignore anything that totally disregards any food group (except maybe processed sugar and candy). The key is keeping a balance. You need less calories to lose weight, yes, but if you drop those calories along with important dietary elements like fiber, fats (yes, fat - mono and poly unsaturated fats are VERY important to the diet), etc... and you are asking for trouble. This article is a worthless one when it comes to health/weight advice. It may attempt to debunk poor habits but it does so poorly and suggests behavior patterns that are just as bad as those that are decried.

the food pyramid is shit (none / 2) (#126)
by crazycanuck on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:41:41 AM EST

I don't see Eskimos dying because they don't eat enough vegetables...

no, they eat raw liver (none / 2) (#138)
by three-pipe on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 12:41:59 PM EST

thats how they get their vitamin c. YUM!

additionally, "eskimo" is an outdated and racist term. use "inuit".


-chad \\ warfordium.org \\
[ Parent ]
Um, but they do. (none / 1) (#144)
by actmodern on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:29:20 PM EST

Eskimos do suffer from heart problems. Look it up sometime.

--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.
[ Parent ]
Inuit life expectancy (none / 1) (#260)
by egeland on Tue May 25, 2004 at 12:21:04 AM EST

Agreed.
Do a Google on this, and you'll see that Inuits (eskimos) have the LOWEST life expectancy of any group of people.
Hmm... might it be beause their (traditional) diet consists of a lot of meat (seal, whale, fish) and the associated fats (mmm... whale blubber..)?
The Human digestive system has the most in common with herbivores (long intestines, low acidity in stomach, molar teeth, jaw that can move relatively freely rather than "hinged" like carnivores'), so this is not that surprising, as all the fats clog up arteries, and cause all sorts of health problems.


--
Some interesting quotes
[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 2) (#197)
by dlec on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:37:31 AM EST

Nutrition is one of the worst Sciences around. They change their minds on a yearly basis because everything they previously said is rubbish, they're conclusions are based on speculation, and they ignore all statistics or data that does not suit them.

The healthiest diet is where you get in tune wity your body and only eat what it craves. Once you learn to do that you don't need a written system, and the body is always right, so why bother with the bad Science.

[ Parent ]

your article (1.50 / 6) (#141)
by Phil San on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 01:47:31 PM EST

Just a few comments about your "article" and I use the term loosely.

I was just watching a documentary on BBC2.

Let's get this clear I assume that you are from Britian. Either that or waste a lot of money of Satellite television. It makes it easier to yell.

I believe it was called Diet Junkies, though I'm almost certainly wrong. Now, I knew from reading all those anti-corporate books like Fast Food Nation and No Logo that fast food companies don't give a shit about their customers -- in fact, it's pretty fucking obvious -- but I still couldn't believe the number of people who got suckered in by these bullshit diets.

It depends on how much "bullshit" we are talking about here. Although I am not directing this at the pseudo-science level stuff I have to feel that your critique on "fat" people is what I am more going after.

The one diet which sticks in my mind was some kind of red protein goo. One G-list celebrity they 'interviewed' about it commented that it "tasted like cough syrup". It took the US and UK by storm, generating millions of dollars for its manufacturers until people started dying of starvation and heart failure. Only then did people realise that not consuming any carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals or micronutrients might result in a thoroughly avoidable death.

From what you have mentioned it isn't immediately obvious that it doesn't have any in there. That is the result of deviousness on the part of the manufacturer.

What the fuck? When did people get so stupid that they forgot that consuming nothing but amino acid polymers might fuck you up royally? It ought to be common sense.

Well considering that no one really mentioned that the product didn't have anything like that in there might be one of the problems.

You need to eat properly to live. There's this thing called the food pyramid. Do you see a section for "shitty-tasting protein gunk"? No. Why not? Because badly-flavoured, artificially-processed gloop is not a part of a balanced diet, and you're a fuckwit if you believe otherwise.

I think you assume that people have information that they don't have. Also random swearing probably indicates you are a programmer, science dabbler, slashdot regular, troll, or all three.

The unfortunate thing is that a disturbingly small number of these fucknuts are dying.

You could start with yourself.

I reckon most of these people have absolutely no willpower and were actually cheating on their diet. It's gotta be pretty hard to stick to a diet which requires you to consume nothing but a small dose of random gunk four times a day.

Most people also assume that if something tasts bad, and no one tells them otherwise it most likely has a medicinal affect. It's really not allthat illfounded either.

I need to figure out a way to push my own line of crappy diet foods to grab some of the diet dollars. I think I'll call it "No Bullshit". They'll all come in plain white boxes with "NO BULLSHIT" written in big fucking block capitals in black, with the name underneath. And no bullshit names either, just "Muesli" or "Cornflakes", all coming in simple kilogram boxes. You want more, buy more. You want less, tough.

OOOhhh aren't you the smart one. You just sound like a pissy science dabbler, or programmer. Your solution sounds like you are just being a stupid reductionist fool. But then I guess reading, and citing actual sources isn't possile in any k5 article unless it's referencing the internet right?

On the back of every item will be a health disclaimer: WARNING: EATING TOO MUCH OF THIS COULD MAKE YOU REALLY FUCKING FAT.

Wow maybe we should do that with illegal drugs like pot that you probably use frequently: WARNING: USE WILL LEAD TO LOSS OF VOCABULARY AND BRAIN CELLS

I'll use the money I make to lobby supermarkets to replace the sweets they have at the counter to ensnare kids with my 'healthier' products.

Osama bin Laden would have an easier time sneaking into the White House.

I'll write a bestselling diet book under the same title. It'll be the only diet with the unique distinction of actually having a fucking basis in fact. The introduction would consist of "This diet requires some degree of willpower. If that's a problem, you don't deserve to be thin because you're obviously some kind of a fucking pussy."

Since when have you done anything that is unique, used actual scientific evidence of any sort, or done anything that counted as research, now wait don't tell me, you don't have too right.

If I wanted to get a book full of swearing and nonsense I would just print out this article and staple it together it would work better.

Not being a lardass consists of two very simple habits: not stuffing your fucking face all the time and getting off your fat fucking arse.

I think you mispelled "ass" in that last sentence. Also I would thank a healthy dose of ass kicking by the rest of humanity that you chose to label. Frankly you can take your British opinions and keep them to yourself.

As such, the only excuse you have for weighing as much as a small car is if you're in a wheelchair like Stephen Hawking or if it's genetic. In that case, it's perfectly understable if you starve yourself for three weeks and yet your belly still looks like two beach balls duct taped together.

Boy you are belting out the hits today aren't you. Here's a thought, get a simple book about vocabulary building and use it frequently. Maybe read something, instead of British tabloids, k5, slahdot, and watching shitty programs on British television. Anyone who uses ad hominem type ways of trying to critique the overweight needs to wonder why all the hostility.

And being lazy is no excuse either. I'm a lazy fuck and I'm not fat. I have a dead normal body mass index of 22.1, and I literally never exercise. I only walk for perhaps 15 or 20 minutes a day and do little over and above that. Why am I not fat? Because I don't eat constantly. Put the fucking Picnic bar down and stop munching. Drink some damn water. Be lazy like me. How?

What the fuck is a "Picnic bar" your cultural centrism is starting to be annoying.

The trick is to find some kind of hobby (in my case, trolling K5) which you can get sufficiently into that it will distract you from eating. This will cut you down to three small meals a day as I have. And don't add anything to your food either. I used to put salt on everything and I was twitchy as a motherfucker. Then I stopped. It was a little tough at first, but now I don't think about it. So just do it. Stock up on instant noodles, cereal, baked beans and bread, and just eat stuff that's quick to prepare. Don't keep snacks lying around in front of your computer or knitting chair or whatever, or you'll just wind up constantly munching on rubbish while you're in the zone.

First of all if you have to distract yourself from things just to function that is just covering up psychologically influenced problems.

Secondly trolling on a message board just makes you sound in my mind like one of those "tough guys" you know the type, they act like an eminem wannabe and swear every other word. They also watch sports, have a reccord, and usually drive around in expensive "manly vehicles" usually things like trucks, or ricer cars.

You don't want to appear like that do you? That's what all the swearing comes across as usually.

(This is known as "grazing").

A scientific term I am sure.

Failing that, just skip breakfast. It's easier than it sounds; just set your alarm clock to twenty minutes later. Bam! You just eliminated a meal. Don't worry about the health implications; if you're eating so much that you have to consider fasting, er, dieting, then the health side-effects of skipping breakfast are most likely negligible in comparison. Reduce the amount of stuff that sinks down your oesophagus and you may even lose some weight.

I am almost totally sure now that you don't have much scientific research for this diatribe at this point.

Most nutritionists (the scientists who actually study health and nutrition) will tell you taht breakfeast is the most important meal of the day (literally) since you need the most energy then and actually the least at dinner.

Simple as that, people.

I'll pretend that you didn't say that. Maybe do a search on a library catalog or on bn.com for nutrition and then come back here.

RACIST. (2.25 / 4) (#151)
by James A C Joyce on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:48:59 PM EST

You're just discriminating against me because I'm English, innit? At least I'm not the one resorting to <i>argumentum ad fallaciem</i>. PIP PIP.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

oh come on... (3.00 / 11) (#156)
by coderlemming on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:39:30 PM EST

I'm with you in spirit, but this was just plain pitiful.  You just quoted every sentence that you could make a cheap shot about, and went ahead and made those cheap shots.  You come across as someone who's frothing at the mouth against the author, but can't come up with a convincing argument as to why.

Anyone who uses ad hominem type ways of trying to critique the overweight needs to wonder why all the hostility.

Anyone who uses ad hominem type ways of trying to critique James A C Joyce needs to be a little more creative.


--
Go be impersonally used as an organic semen collector!  (porkchop_d_clown)
[ Parent ]

Amereekan Spellink (2.14 / 7) (#161)
by weltfish on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 06:35:29 PM EST

Actually, fucktard, the rest of the world spells it 'arse'. Only America confuses the synonym for 'donkey' with a synonym for 'anus'. You'd probably get a right old giggle out of reading any (non-American edition) Bible, 'cause it's just loaded with references to people 'riding an ass' and the like (Hee hee. Bad wurds! Funny bible!). Oh, and, uh, just guessing, right, but you're the sort who'd actually look at a can of red goop, and _not_ intuitively know that it won't sustain your system, right?

[ Parent ]
warning virtrol ahead (none / 0) (#254)
by Phil San on Wed Mar 10, 2004 at 12:46:12 PM EST

Frankly Ladies and Gents I refrained from making comment on this for a while largely because I didn't think it was worth a god damned fuck, but since I couldn't be more angry now I feel the need.

Actually, fucktard,

Now, now, gentle hippie don't get angry, you might get Budda mad. Frankly shouldn't you be using delightful Britishisms like bugger, bloody, or saying God Save The Queen about now? If you aren't from an English speaking tradition then you are just using stupid shitty British English words that don't apply to your tradition. I personally they have curse words, words to refer to body parts, including intimate areas, including one's waste extraction, and reproductive orifices. So basically you are a cunt.

the rest of the world spells it 'arse'.

What portion of the world is that? Oh I see you might not have received the memo. You know the one that said that the phrase "The sun never sets on the British Empire" more or less ended at least 50 years ago. I also remember hearing that English isn't the only spoken, writen, or even the only language on the planet. I also don't give a damn what kind of British toadying that everyone does. It's almost commical when I have to hear people who sound like Eliza Doolitle every day trying to make themselves sound important. Maybe you can be like the author of the article and use fuck more than a Eminem lookalike in a southern Trailer park.

Only America confuses the synonym for 'donkey' with a synonym for 'anus'.

You must really like living in the past. I bet you also seriously use the term lord and master interchangably. Hey you probably use thee and thou in public speaking as well right? Dumb bitch fucker. Using a word that was meant to rhyme with Khyber Pass isn't educated it just makes you look like a retarded gutter trash person. Frankly I don't know why you don't understand that Britian usually has two types of accents. 1. Accents that apply to people who are from the upper class. 2. Accents that apply to people who would be considered trailer trash in America. However being locked into an island nation which even considers land fill sites good places to built becaues of land scarcities you can't even built them so you cram all your idiots into an area the size of a postage stamp and call them "citizens" Oh any maybe another category: 3. Foreign Accents. I mean you have to get your fix with your crown Jewel of your empire. I think you got hooked on Indian pussy myself.

You'd probably get a right old giggle out of reading any (non-American edition) Bible,

Unlike worthless k5 fools I don't read jive laden biblical translations. I do however place words like "ass" as cultural artifacts of the time. God in America bloody and bugger aren't even swear words. In fact I could probably scream them in place of fuck and shit/damn and nobody would probably even notice the difference. Just face facts your empire is long gone and your legitimacy of it's institutions are long gone as well. Arse sounds retarded as well. Maybe I should use Old English or Aramaic to curse from. Hey maybe I can use k5 retarded logic and revive some nice Latin curses while I'm at it. I'm surprised that you can even use the term "fuck" anyway. I'm sure it's just too American for you anyway.

'cause it's just loaded with references to people 'riding an ass' and the like (Hee hee. Bad wurds! Funny bible!).

You are so lucky I don't practice in person violence. Here's a thought. I tell you what *I* think is funny and then you dance ok? Good that we understand each other. Most of that retarded homosexual thinking is usually a European phenomeon anyway in it's inception. Oh wait you probably only read the bible for entertainment or as "literature". Well you should be glad that I don't or if I didn't have some kind of ethical constraints I would have even less reason to be civil.

Oh, and, uh, just guessing, right, but you're the sort who'd actually look at a can of red goop, and _not_ intuitively know that it won't sustain your system, right?

Look, you stupid, mother fucking, ass rammer. It's called scientific research. Hell let's just try the simplest counterexample I can possibly think of. I get a bottle of vitamins. In this case red is a very common color, grind them up, add some agent that keeps the stuff from seperating, settling out, and tasting too bad (enough that even your steak and kidney pie eating cake hole will barf it up [probably hate that word too eh?]) and you get red goop that will probably sustain you without any possible problem. Now add some other stuff and you can concievably live for the rest of your life bearing the Queen kicking your ass in the Khyber Pass. Of course you probably own a donkey to engage in some other non-work persuits. Therefore my apologies.

[ Parent ]
your rant (none / 2) (#174)
by gabban on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 09:45:36 AM EST

The difference between your rant and the rant you're ranting about is that the latter is at least amusing to read.

And pot doesn't kill brain cells. ;)

[ Parent ]
why do you care so much Mr. Joyce? (2.66 / 6) (#147)
by redqueen on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 02:49:02 PM EST

let the fatties be fat. Let you bean poles stay thin. how much time did you waste writing this piece of crap?

some fattie tell you you're ugly?

Best "interesting female" (impersonator): redqueen. - sausalito
YHBT (n/t) (none / 1) (#149)
by actmodern on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 03:36:00 PM EST



--
LilDebbie challenge: produce the water sports scene from bable or stfu. It does not exist.
[ Parent ]
My favorite... (2.42 / 7) (#155)
by DDS3 on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:28:40 PM EST

is when they say, "I normally don't eat like this."  Yet, they don't have any problem putting away food for three or four and are not the least bit uncomfortable afterwards.


Get a clue people!  If your stomach is so enlarged that a huge meal does cause great discomfort, you ARE eating like that all the time.  Get it?  Your stomach is used to be gorged to that degree!  Heck, it's downright comfortable with it.


I especially like the fast food followup by the diet drink.


I also like the counting of candies, and think that it's okay.  Get a clue!  If you're over weight, stop eating candy.  All candy.  Any candy.  Yes, that includes the 10 MM's, the small piece of pie, and the fiber cup cake you have with dinner.  Stop it!  Stop eating sugar!  Reduce your bread and pasta intake!  When you get a craving for candie, cake, or pie, eat some fruit!  You try putting a SMALL amount of salt on top of it as, some fruits will taste sweeter and help satisfy your sugar craving.


I also love the insane portions that people eat.  A steak, which is 3/4 the size of your plate and a potato which takes up the other 1/4.  Good thing they passed on the salad, bread, and water, so they'd have to gorge on everything in their plate.


I also love the snide remarks that fat people make when you order a salad and put dressing on it.  Here's a clue folks.  Salads can not only taste good, but they are a key ingredient for good health.  Just because I'm eating a salad, doesn't mean I'm dieting.  Guess what?  It's called good eating!

Actually (none / 1) (#167)
by blakdogg on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 09:51:26 PM EST

> I especially like the fast food followup by the diet drink.

Diet soda is better for your teeth than the real stuff.

Also a large soda is over 300 calories, supersize over 400. So with a diet soda a large meal drops from 1300 calories to 1000. Given the recommended daily calorie intake is about 2500 calories, a diet soda is a prudent choice.


Woe be onto the United Nations, there nothing but a front.
[ Parent ]

Nooo! (none / 1) (#196)
by dlec on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:24:59 AM EST

No, you are eating a bunch of carcinogenic chemicals that are poisonous to your body, and create disease. It is not a good choice. Just drink water or tea.

[ Parent ]
Sugar intake.. (none / 0) (#249)
by DDS3 on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 05:19:05 PM EST

...diet or ortherwise incrases cravings and encourages people to seek our sugar elsewhere.  If they really wanted to lose weight, they would pass on soda of any kind.

[ Parent ]
Heh (3.00 / 4) (#157)
by Lagged2Death on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:47:16 PM EST

And being lazy is no excuse either. I'm a lazy fuck and I'm not fat.

Just wait, sonny. Just you wait and see.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!

Society Creates Fat, Not Nature (none / 1) (#158)
by Arlius on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:58:18 PM EST

Personally, I have never seen an animal that has been free of human influence be truely fat (in an unhealthy way -- bears and whales fat is healthy and natural) EXCESSIVE FAT IS NOT NATURAL. There are very few cases (in comparison with gereral population) of genetic disorders where it is basically impossible for the person to be thin. If you are fat, it is your choice, your fault. Anyone can EASILY lose weight FAST. If you gain muscle mass, then work on cardio, you will drop pounds. Your resting metabolism will be higher, you will just plain burn more fat. With a certain muscle mass and 'endurance' (sorry, brainfart, cant think of a better word...) it is very very difficult to maintain being fat. People always think it takes so much work and so many hours of exercise, but it doesn't. 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 1 month. Thats 8 total hours, and you will lose alot of weight if you do the correct exercises... The only excuse for being fat is ignorance, laziness, arrogance, no self control, and just plain stupidity. Fat IS a serious health risk. And so is all the shit on the market now. Did you know that Americans went from consuming an average of 20 pounds of sugar a year in 1920 to over 700 pounds of sugar in the mid 90's? Our bodies arent meant to cope with this (which is the cause for the large increase in type II diabetes. If someone has type II, they did it to themselves, eating to much chips, chocolate and candy bars. Scary but true, watch what you eat...) Fat leads to clogged arteries, an overworked heart kidneys liver... its just not good. Overall its about as bad as smoking, though less definite in its final outcomes (as in smoking is a first class ticket to cancer, fat is charter flight to heart attacks, if that makes any sense) I do not feel fat people deserve any kind of special treatment. It is their choice. Most do not want sympathy anyways. Eat right (ie natural, dont get so much packaged shit, make the food yourself, and keep it simple! its all the extras that are so bad (gravy etc)) and exercise a bit! Easier said than done... but what isnt? All there is to it is doing, not trying, not thinking of trying. It will work if it is done. So meaning... if you are still overweight, you have no one to blame but YOU!

Sorry (none / 0) (#160)
by Arlius on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 05:03:06 PM EST

Never posted before... all the paragraphing I put in didnt stay... maybe I shoulda previewed first...

[ Parent ]
Yeah, you fucked it good. [nt] (none / 2) (#201)
by flaw on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 08:09:51 PM EST



--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Thank you very much for your advice. Go away now. (none / 1) (#206)
by rpresser on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:34:11 PM EST

Did anyone ask you to hold forth from the mountain on exactly how to lose weight? Does anyone care what you think?

Those who do have both an interest and an ability in helping people lose weight can be recognized by the lack of vitriol in their rhetoric.  Idiots like the above can fortunately be ignored without damaging the chance of losing weight whatsoever.

A variation on the classic line comes to mind: "I may be fat, but I can lose weight; you will always be an asshole."
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

Some points to note (none / 1) (#259)
by egeland on Mon May 24, 2004 at 10:57:31 PM EST

Does anyone care what you think?

You obviously cared enough to sprout some vitriol of you own, so I guess someone does care. ;)

You seem very determined to shoot down any comments on obese people being responsible for their condition. Arlius has some good points in his post:

People always think it takes so much work and so many hours of exercise, but it doesn't. 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week, for 1 month. Thats 8 total hours, and you will lose alot of weight if you do the correct exercises
Makes sense, and most of it is in most health advice on how to manage weight, so this surely wasn't what offended you so?

Maybe this next line was the offender?:
The only excuse for being fat is ignorance, laziness, arrogance, no self control, and just plain stupidity. Fat IS a serious health risk.
Maybe Arlius didn't go to the Dale Carnegie school of diplomacy, but the points are no less valid for the crudity of the delivery.
Education, exercist and low-fat diets will all do wonders to reduce your weight.


--
Some interesting quotes
[ Parent ]

20 pounds to 700?? (none / 0) (#236)
by lil on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 02:43:47 PM EST

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/jan2000/frjan2000b.pdf

The very last chart shows an increase of sugar consumption from just over 80 pounds in 1909 to about 150 or so in 1999. Not good, but not nearly the astronomical increase you claim.

[ Parent ]

uh natural? (none / 0) (#241)
by leon trotsky on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 11:05:53 AM EST

I've never seen a whale or a bear post a comment to kuro5hin either... When was the last time you really SAW something truely natural?

[ Parent ]
Is this the worst article to ever get voted up? (2.71 / 7) (#159)
by splitpeasoup on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 04:58:39 PM EST

If not, post a link to your favorite contender.

(Pease, 'Brimful of Asha, Explained' is not a contender.)

-SPS

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Damn. (none / 0) (#184)
by SnowBlind on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 06:36:55 PM EST

You win =(

There is but One Kernel, and root is His Prophet.
[ Parent ]
at least you're sublimating your anger (none / 0) (#162)
by tweetsygalore on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 07:24:51 PM EST


uh-huh.

best
C
After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realised that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis comes along. --- Justice William Brennan

fat fucking asses (1.42 / 7) (#169)
by parasite on Thu Feb 26, 2004 at 10:24:23 PM EST

You know -- I lived in China last year. Well, when I first got there I thought -- HEY! Well at least none of the chicks need to be eliminated on the basis of 'weight' alone. I mean, that eliminates a good 3/4ths of them in the US for god's sake. So anyhow, after about 5 months in -- I started to realize there are a lot of fat chicks nonetheless. Maybe as much as 1/3 were too heavy for me...

Low and behold I come back to AMERICA, and DEAR GOD I WAS IN FOR A SHOCK. I still cringe everytime I see a super tub-of-lard try to squeeze into one of the small desks/chairs at college. (And don't say "Just don't look!" because there are no less than 3 of them in every class!) WHAT THE FUCK!! STOP EATING SO GODDAMNED MUCH.

No, truth be told, I must admit I was more overweight than I realized when I left for China. I was 195lbs at only 5'10". Well, I had the fortune of having a health nut Canuck buddy in China, and before long I was hitting the gym regularly, and not being able to handle too much Chinese food I soon got down to a reasonable 180. (With a lot more muscle it's reasonable.)

The main problem with Americans -- the fat ones -- which is most of you fuckers -- is that you just have NO REAL CONCEPT of how few calories your body really needs. I mean you think you're going on a "diet" and all you do is reduce your calories from 4000 to 3000 when your body struggles to burn 1500. Here is a HINT FOR YOU: You don't loose weight by reducing the speed at which you get fatter by 25%, you only get fat more slowly... Forget the goddamned fries! I have a lot more muscle now, and between a cup of milk and 95 calories Special-K bar for breakfast, a can of Pepsi and a Wendy's burger for lunch (NO FRIES), and whatever my mom cooks for dinner -- I am slowly gaining weight. That is right -- NO SNACKS in that formula, and my body can't even burn the food which, before I went to China, I would have considered a starvation diet.

Good luck, and if you get just too fucking fat, find the country with the most intolerable food, and move there for 6 months -- It'll do you WONDERS!

So sorry we offend you; please go fuck yourself (1.75 / 3) (#204)
by rpresser on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:30:12 PM EST

What harm has been done to you by fat people's relentless, unforgivable action in continuing to exist? Has a fat person ever beaten you up? Did one take your job or something?  Please tell me why it bothers you to see a fat person.  Don't try to tell me that you get angry because the person is treating him or herself badly; I am positive you don't have even 0.1% of the compassion necessary to formulate that thought...

------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
You people are disgusting (none / 2) (#218)
by treat on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:27:42 PM EST

What harm has been done to you by fat people's relentless, unforgivable action in continuing to exist?

Fat people are unattractive. As they get fatter, it moves from unattractiveness to disgustingness. Some people are so fat, it is genuinely nauseating. Is not seeing something in public that is so disgusting it nauseates you a genuine harm?

I see you married a woman who is quite obese. Perhaps you felt this was the best you could get due to your own obesity. Perhaps you are part of a very small portion of people that considers this to be attractive. (maybe she looks like your mother). More likely, you simply don't consider this level of obesity to be nauseating, and the woman has a good enough personality to make up for the fact that she is unattractive. But just as there are people who enjoy fucking a squawking chicken, most people would find the sight appalling.

[ Parent ]

my only problem with it (none / 0) (#239)
by parasite on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 08:20:59 PM EST


The main thing I have about it -- is just that it is shocking to me to see such absolutely selfless creatures continue to chunk it up. I mean -- for God's sakes, it is frightening to realize the portion of the population in this country that is so utterly selfless... But one thing that really epitomized the whole thing was the movie "Shallow Hal" -- now forget for a moment that the idiotic "intended" interpretation of morality in the movie (that the woman was a good person for some odd reasons), and realize how ENTIRELY consistent that evil woman's life was: she was entirely selfless. She cared too little for herself to stop pigging out, too little for herself to pursue anything of value for her ON LIFE, and selflessly pursued everything for the sake of strangers--or worse yet, animals! If that wasn't philosophical consistency, I don't know what is brother!

But really the main thing is that I have absolute no compassion for people who die of lung cancer or die early from obesity-- and I especially ABHOR the ones amongst them who would have the audacity to blame their terrible decisions on others and, for example, ATTEMPT to sue McDonalds. (Regardless of whether or not the court is stupid enough to even hear the case, the very attempt is absolutely malicious.)

You, as a human, are a creature of free will, and when you smoke OR chunk it up, on a daily basis, you have not made a "mistaken decision" that you should be forgiven for -- but HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of bad decisions, each in and of itself harmless, but combined -- having so many years and opportunities to halt the slow process, that most every excuss ever raised for explaining such falls none short of perposterous.

[ Parent ]

Not buying it (none / 0) (#255)
by rpresser on Mon Mar 15, 2004 at 02:45:09 PM EST

I said:
Don't try to tell me that you get angry because the person is treating him or herself badly; I am positive you don't have even 0.1% of the compassion necessary to formulate that thought...

You replied:


The main thing I have about it -- is just that it is shocking to me to see such absolutely selfless creatures continue to chunk it up.
...
But really the main thing is that I have absolute no compassion for people who die of lung cancer or die early from obesity ....

So you are shocked.  So what?  You said yourself you have absolutely no compassion for these people. And you haven't said word one about any harm they cause you.  If you don't care if they hurt themselves, and they aren't hurting you, why the hell are you shocked? Why the hell do you feel it necessary to say you're shocked?  And why the hell should anyone care that you're shocked?
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#256)
by parasite on Sat Mar 20, 2004 at 11:40:13 PM EST


Okay FINE!!

Dude, I'm doing this partially because I've never seen it happen before on the internet in my life. So I'm going to just say: OKAY, You win. Your arguments are compelling, I concede the argument to you.

[ Parent ]

Guy is a trolling idiot (none / 2) (#173)
by armonica on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 08:36:14 AM EST

He has a point with drinking of just the amino acids. However his comment about the food pyramid shows just how ignorant he is. That was put together out of special interests years ago pure and simple. It has been revised many times, including recently. You don't need milk for example. In fact it is made for a 2 stomach system, not a single stomach like we have (unless you are a cow or something like Oprah... it's a joke son!). Worried about calcium? Eat dark green leafy veggies, don't drink milk for it. Yes it has some calcium but not as much as you have been led to believe. You can do with very little to no carbs as well. Contrary to a what a lot of very uninformed people out there are saying.

You do need to preserve your vitamins, however or you will end up in the hospital or dead. So take multi-vitamins. See your doc and get blood work done.

Mr. Joyce also has no clue that people who are overweight to very much overweight will try anything to get rid of it. I know in my case I was way overweight and as long as it wouldn't kill me I was willing to try it. Then you get desperate and you will try stuff that might kill you. Hey, you are young and can take it... you think. So just keep in mind there is no pill or spray that will make you loose 50-300 Lbs in 4 or less weeks no matter what you see on E-bay (or elsewhere). Even if there is a money back guarantee. You won't send for the money back, you will be to concerned that you were a failure to do that or it is too hard. They go Cha Ching! Another sucker! They do give you your money back though, minus the shipping. At least the ones I bought from did. None of my friends who tried these things sent theirs back.

Finally don't take what you read from everyone here to heart. I bet not one of us is qualified to comment on your condition - we don't know you. Deiticians are also bad because they have to unlearn a lot of stuff that was drilled into them (it was wrong we know now). Most doc's know how to take care of you now.... or so it seems.

No calcium in milk. (none / 2) (#195)
by dlec on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:15:27 AM EST

I would just like to extend a point you make. There is actually no usable calcium in milk whatsoever. In fact, drinking milk leeches the calcium from your body that you got from other sources.

This may be just conincidental, but there is a strong correlation between the amount of milk consumed in a country, and the amount of osteoporosis (calcium deficiency) -- the countries where milk and dairy products are not consumed usually have no osteoporosis whatsoever. If you want calcium then eat more darkly coloured green vegetables (particularly spinach).

[ Parent ]

Milk has calcium (none / 2) (#202)
by sheafification on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 08:53:22 PM EST

No calcium in milk

This claim is false. Evidence to the contrary is readily available.

There is actually no usable calcium in milk whatsoever.

The claim has now changed, but it is still false. Any cursory review of the literature will reveal numerous studies showing various non-zero values for absorption percentages of calcium from cow's milk. If I had to guess, I would say that you are attempting to parrot the claims made by groups like the PCRM(which has ties to PETA). Their claim is not that cow's milk has no bioavailable calcium(since that is clearly false). They claim that injesting animal products works to leach calcium from the body, and that other food sources have higher bioavailability of calcium than cow's milk.

[ Parent ]

milk myth - careful! (none / 1) (#223)
by DGolden on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 03:39:04 PM EST

Note that many northern europeans can digest cow's milk happily, we have evolved to do so. An awful lot of people of european extraction therefore have no reason to avoid cow's milk, and in fact some should probably be drinking about a pint a day like their ancestors have done for thousands of years

Having said that, you are partly right, the calcium is apparently not as bioavailable as other sources even to us, but there are plenty of other good reasons to drink milk, so long as you have the genes to handle it - after all, it has some of those vitamin things you mentioned, and it tastes nice (maybe - actually, a fairly good first indicator of whether you should be drinking milk is whether you like the taste! )


Don't eat yellow snow
[ Parent ]
www.notmilk.com (none / 0) (#258)
by egeland on Mon May 24, 2004 at 10:42:08 PM EST

I suggest you read a bunch of articles on this site to get the other side's views.
Just because you can digest it, doesn't neccessarily make it healthy for you to do so.

As an extreme example, your body can digest (as in, take into the bloodstream from the stomach/intestines) arsenic, but that doesn't make it wise to do so, does it?


--
Some interesting quotes
[ Parent ]

Were it so simple. (none / 0) (#178)
by rosincore on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 10:41:32 AM EST

Time wounds all heels.

Unfortunately, time produces MORE heels [nt] (none / 0) (#205)
by rpresser on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 11:31:09 PM EST


------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
Fast food's product is not food, it's time (2.88 / 9) (#186)
by niku on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 07:40:38 PM EST

Fast food's product is not food, it's time. Time, in this busy world, is a good product, and one that is very valuable. It's not sexy, it's not exactly the way we'd like it, but over all, fast food make our lives better. I know that seems like a backward idea, but it's true.

Fast food is not good for you. It's greesy, pretty crappy tasting for the most part (would you rather have a cheeseburger from McDonalds, or a cheeseburger from off your grill?) but the fact is, it's really easy to go to McDonalds. It takes you about five minutes to order and receive your food. You don't even need to get out of the car. Think about a single working mother with a couple of kids: McDonalds provides her with a really valuable service -- not having to make dinner for three people after working eight hours, not having to clean up after cooking, not having to wash the pots and pans, the dishes, not having to have gone to the grocery store on her way home, picked up the groceries, carried them to the car, dealt (here in california) with the picketers yelling at her for going to the closest store to the house.

When you need to go to the post office or to the store on your lunch break, or when you have to meet someone somewhere and are running late, you can go to a fast food place and grab lunch or dinner w/o having to take the time to make it yourself, or to wait for the time it takes them to make your food "by hand" in a normal resturant. If you don't have much money, you can't go to a "regular" resturant: fast food is really your only option if you don't want to come home after work and make dinner. Especially since if you are not making enough money to go to a regular resturant, you are problably working very hard all day at your less-than-glamourous job.

I'm not saying that fast food resturants are wonderfull companies, where the carebears greet everyone at the door, and where with every happy meal you get a better life. But they're not all bad. It would be nice if they had better, healthier food -- I'd love to go get a ham and cheese sandwitch on marble bread with lettuce, sliced onion and pickles and spicy mustard instead of a fried chicken sandwitch *SLATHERED* with mayo and that is big enough to be satisfying without having to order fries on the side, but it's not going to happen, and that's OK. I try not to go to fast food resturants that often, but when I do, I'm glad they're there. If it bothers people so much, they should go ahead and fix it.

Just my two cents anyway.


--
Nicholas Bernstein, Technologist, artist, etc.
http://nicholasbernstein.com
What nonesense! (none / 3) (#192)
by dlec on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 12:06:29 AM EST

Sorry I didn't all of your message because it starts of with complete nonsense, and continued going downhill from there.

Tell me. Which food is faster to prepare than fruit?

I rest my case.

[ Parent ]

You idiot (3.00 / 3) (#203)
by dn on Sat Feb 28, 2004 at 09:20:54 PM EST

It takes years to get the orchard bearing fruit. We only have the luxury of fruit because we could survive on true fast food in the meantime. QED.

    I ♥
TOXIC
WASTE

[ Parent ]

It's both (none / 2) (#208)
by Rainy on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 12:34:08 AM EST

There are some very quick healthy foods. E.g: oatmeal, fruits, iceberg lettuice, nuts, honey, etc. But when you're addicted to a highly salty, fat, sugary assortment, they won't satisfy. So these unfortunate, poor millions are faced with a hard choice: they either have to spend a long time to create a proper tasty (to them) and healthy dinner, or to eat something that'll give no satisfaction. Neither choice is practical. But.. if practical choices lead to disease, pain, depression and death, maybe impractical choices are not that scary, in retrospect? I suppose I would try, in their place, to do both.. when time allows, a proper dinner, when not, quick healthy dish. And I'd try to look into what takes up so much time. It's always possible to improve a bit here and there.. and of course we're greedy, even with self-improvement, we think that it's not fair that for a given amount of effort we get X result, we think it's fair to get 2*X result or even 4*X, but that's reality.. you only get X.
--
Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
[ Parent ]
A few important points. (none / 0) (#253)
by Matadon on Mon Mar 08, 2004 at 05:28:23 PM EST

Fast food is not good for you. It's greesy, pretty crappy tasting for the most part (would you rather have a cheeseburger from McDonalds, or a cheeseburger from off your grill?) but the fact is, it's really easy to go to McDonalds. It takes you about five minutes to order and receive your food. You don't even need to get out of the car.

Yeah, but you have to drive to the McDonalds (those who would walk or bike to a McDonalds are pretty rare).  Which takes additional time.  Realistically speaking, getting in the car, waiting in the queue, and driving home will take an average of around half and hour; in that amount of time, I can easily grill fresh burgers and make a plate of tasty home-fries.  At a substantial cost-savings, I might add.

This home-cooked meal is substantially healther than McDonalds fare.  It's not that McDonalds is "not good for you" -- McDonalds food is actively bad for you.  A McDonalds meal has far more preservatives, fat, sodium, and cholesterol than a comparative home-cooked meal; you're literally better off eating a bowl of ice cream than a Big Mac for your evening meal.

This doesn't sound like much of a deal, given that there isn't really any time savings, and that one ends up paying more for the dinner from McDonalds.

Think about a single working mother with a couple of kids: McDonalds provides her with a really valuable service -- not having to make dinner for three people after working eight hours, not having to clean up after cooking, not having to wash the pots and pans, the dishes, not having to have gone to the grocery store on her way home, picked up the groceries, carried them to the car, dealt (here in california) with the picketers yelling at her for going to the closest store to the house.

First off, the pickets aren't at every store; in fact, running into pickets is rather rare, and I've never had a problem with them barricading my entrance or giving me any real grief.  The picketers are a non-issue.

Second, that single working mother still has to go to the store every week -- McDonalds still doesn't supply one with toilet paper, cleaning supplies, breakfast cerial, diapers, and so on.  Since our Single Mom still needs to go to the store, she doesn't eat a time penalty for getting food while she's there.

Third, it takes as much time to prepare, cook, eat, and clean up a healthy dinner as it does to martial a few kids into the car, drive to McDonalds, place an order, get the order, eat, and drive home.  So no time-savings there, either; in fact, the Single Mom has to work more hours to pay for the increased cost of a McDonalds meal, versus eating at home.  On top of that, the kids can get involved in the preparation process, which eases life on Mom, teaches the kids some valuable cooking skills[1], and helps bring the family together more.  It gives the kids a good example of how much Mom cares for them, which is pretty valuable in this day and age.

Just as important, by cooking at home, Mom is making sure her kids stay healthy -- McDonalds food is even worse for kids than it is for adults.  Mom is also reinforcing healthy eating attitudes and behaviors which will benefit her kids down the road, and saving money in the process.

Fast food really loses hands-down in your example.

I'm not saying that fast food resturants are wonderfull companies...

They're not; but I can't fault them, either, because they bank on the idea that people are stupid -- if you're dumb enough to think that McDonalds food is anything other than pure lard, than you deserve what you get out of it.  This is one of the reasons that I, while I will never eat there, am proudly a McDonalds shareholder -- I'm counting on the idiots of the world to continue eating McDonalds pseudo-food, because it makes me money.  So far, those idiots have yet to let me down.

It would be nice if they had better, healthier food...

Check out Chipotle.  McDonalds has responded to this request by creating a separate chain of restaurants that provide high-quality, healthy Mexican food at fantastic prices -- one burrito is easily enough for two separate meals, and they even sell beer.  Chipotle is a place I will grab lunch at, and is the other reason I'm a proud McDonalds shareholder. grin

[1] This is how my parents did things, and I'm the only guy I know who moved out with the ability to cook food that didn't come out of a box.  This has saved me a ton of money, kept me from getting insanely fat, and saved me a ton of time overall.  

--
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." — Richard Dawkins.
[ Parent ]

the google ads are great (none / 3) (#187)
by vinayd on Fri Feb 27, 2004 at 07:48:17 PM EST

I love the call to action -- the first google ad, adjacent the article text, was about how to gain weight if you are skinny; there are of course a bunch of the other usual suspects. log out and have a look. it's priceless.

my 2 cents or so: obesity is disgusting and pathetic and people who make excuses for it need to travel the world a bit to see what real adversity is like. I did. I don't feel sorry for fat people any more, the same way I don't feel sorry for alcoholics.


One can be silent and sit still only when one has bow and arrow: else one chatters and quarrels. - Nietzsche

fat fucks (1.40 / 5) (#217)
by CentralScrutinizer on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 10:15:09 AM EST

What really shags me off is the excuses. A physicist might come up with some exceptions - BUT MATTER DOESN'T SELF GENERATE. If you're a fat fuck, that fat comes from somewhere... the shite you shovel into your mouths. There isn't a 'generate fatty tissue from thin-fucking-air' gene.
- Why does America need oil when it has such high-octane stupidity?
But some of us like big girls. (none / 2) (#222)
by chupacabra on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 02:53:46 PM EST

If everyone was skinny i would be so bored.

Too many skeletons in other peoples closets..

Where did that baby goat go?

The human body isn't evolved for this (2.66 / 12) (#225)
by kcbrown on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 07:37:36 PM EST

Most people, like the poster, treat the problem of obesity as one of sheer willpower. But those people don't understand the nature of the problem, which means that they aren't likely to arrive at a workable solution, either.

The key to solving the problem is understanding the problem. The problem is this: the human body is evolved to optimally deal with food scarcity, at least in the case of the early ancestors of those who have obesity issues. There are people out there whose ancestors have always had a reasonably large and/or steady supply of food available and as a result aren't as prone to obesity as others -- these are the people who, like the poster, believe that losing weight "should" be easy. Those who aren't as genetically lucky (relative to the current environment of plentiful food) have bodies that deal optimally with food scarcity.

Think about the implications of that for a second. Most of the evolution of the human body came about during a period of time when food was difficult to acquire. That means that the body must be able to enable the individual to function well for extended periods of time (up to a week) in situations when food isn't available at all for that period of time. What attributes would you expect such a human body to have? That's simple enough to answer:

  1. Provides a highly efficient mechanism to store food energy. Fat, in this case, at about , and a human body evolved to deal with food scarcity will preferentially store fat whenever possible.
  2. Provides a large incentive to acquire food. After all, the more food you can acquire the greater the probability that you will survive through the next scarcity cycle. What does such an incentive look like? Twofold: hunger signals that are set off relatively easily, and a great interest in food in general.
  3. Reluctantly uses high-density energy stores. In this case, the human body even goes so far as to burn muscle before burning fat unless the muscle tissue in question is being used very regularly.

Now take that human body with its behavior optimized for food scarcity, and put it in a situation where food is not only abundant, but available on demand. What would you expect to happen?

Right: the drive to eat (which is instinctive -- you do not have control over what you want, only what you do) causes the individual with the above characteristics to eat more or less continuously, and that combined with that individual body's tendency to preferentially store food energy means that the person gets fat quickly. And even worse, the body resists attempts to lose that fat with everything in its arsenal that wouldn't (in an environment of food scarcity) put the life of the person in jeopardy.

Well, that's exactly what we're seeing in the case of millions of people in the U.S., which is arguably the country that has the greatest abundance of food available on demand at the cheapest prices in the world.

The reason diets in general don't work is that they aren't sustainable. They're not sustainable because the environmental conditions haven't changed: food is just as cheap and freely available as before, and the people in question know this. Their desire to eat (which, as I said, is not something that can be controlled) is just as great as it would be in times of food scarcity.

This desire to eat must not be underestimated. It is one of the strongest drives we humans have. It is so strong that it eclipses the fight or flight response in strength. The latter is something that can be trained out of someone -- something that is routinely done in the military, for instance. The drive to eat is something that nobody has had any consistent success in training out of someone, otherwise there would be some organization somewhere doing it and showing a high long-term success rate in keeping people's weight down. Instead, the vast, vast majority of people who attempt diets of any kind fail in the long run because they are fighting an instinct that simply will not be denied.

This means that the only truly long-term solution is to either make food much more scarce than it is, which simply isn't going to happen in a free economy, or to figure out how to fool the human body into thinking that its obligation to eat has been met when it actually hasn't been.

There are things that people can do that will mitigate the problem. The first is to concentrate on eating the types of food that deliver the greatest amount of satiety for the calories delivered. Such foods tend to be very high in protein and low in carbohydrates. So meats and most vegetables qualify.

Carbohydrates are actually the worst at delivering satiety for the calories supplied. While it's necessary for the human body to have some carbohydrates, remember that the human body evolved during a period of time when there was no agriculture, and that means that the vast majority of foods available were meats, vegetables, and fruits, the first two of which are relatively low in carbohydrates. How much of each was available depended mostly on the geographic area.

The second is to exercise, at least some. The reason this is important is not so much that it will increase the calories burned (that will happen, but the body will respond by demanding more food), but that it will cause the body to burn less muscle when the body is calorie-deficient.

But even with the above, until a long-term solution is available, people will simply have to continue to fight a losing battle that involves the willpower to simply go hungry for periods of time. And those who have dealt or who are dealing with obesity problems know that the willpower required is greater than for just about anything else.

The human body didn't evolve with cars and tv (none / 3) (#227)
by alex fittyfives on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 10:02:35 PM EST

I agree with what you're saying but you seem to have concentrated on half the problem and only given a paragraph to exercise. As well as the widespread availability of food (at least in countries like the U.S and here in Australia where all the fat people are) we also drive cars and watch tv. Our ancestors had to walk to work, well they had to walk just about everywhere. And when they arrived home from a hard day hunting and gathering they probably didn't switch on the tv and do nothing more than change channels for the next six hours they probably built their house or something. Face it: food in - exercise = fat created Simple. Yet you don't seem to suggesting that we rid the world of SUVs. It isn't all about food. So, eat whatever you want, but just use some of that fuel because seeing my fat friends makes me sad.

[ Parent ]
Amen brother. [nt] (none / 0) (#243)
by esrever on Tue Mar 02, 2004 at 07:48:04 PM EST



Audit NTFS permissions on Windows
[ Parent ]
Porn (none / 1) (#228)
by Tex BigbalIs on Sun Feb 29, 2004 at 10:15:10 PM EST

There's probably sugar in the porn magazines too.

Stop driving your cars and walk to the McDonalds (none / 2) (#230)
by gr3m on Mon Mar 01, 2004 at 12:41:24 AM EST

I dont own a car, have little desire to get one
I also do a lot of bushwalking and rockclimbing
I find it very hard to keep the weight on
If you ever see me hiking out on the trails im always eatting something every 30 minutes to an hour
If you see me at home or work... im usually eatting something
The problem isnt sugar, fat, protien...
I consume a lot of sugar on the trail and im a self confessed sweet tooth
I eat about 4 or 5 eggs _each day_ (sounds weird, but i need the protien for muscle repair)

The problem is instead of walking that 1km to the corner store... you drive there instead
Get off your fat ass and exercise chubby
Walking is the safest and most enjoyable form of exercise you can do your entire life

Please Tell Me How To Be Fat kthnx (none / 0) (#247)
by 5pectre on Wed Mar 03, 2004 at 12:02:26 PM EST

I'm 5ft6 and 8stone.

My typical food per day is: 5x cups of coffee, 1x croissant, 1x bowl rice, 2x eggs (fried), 2x slices of bread, 2x pints beer, 1x portion of meat (beef/chicken) (fried).

I'm 20 and haven't put on any weight since I was 16.

I'd like to be 9stone, please tell me how to achieve this.

kthnxbye.

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

Just Wait (none / 1) (#248)
by HiFi78 on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 02:06:13 PM EST

Give it five years... none of your pants will fit anymore.

[ Parent ]
me tooo!!! /aoler (none / 1) (#251)
by univgeek on Fri Mar 05, 2004 at 09:20:19 PM EST

I'm 5' 10" and 104lb (47kgs). I'm 25, and I think I've gained a pound or two over the last 5 years.

Before that, I increased in height from around 5'2", and gained roughly 10kgs.  

My mom has tried nearly everything to fatten me up :-D. I eat everything in sight, and don't put on a pound.

As a grad student, on trips to the store, I buy the highest calorie items, to satisfy my hunger on long marathon study sessions. I'm the envy of most of my friends, who get mad when I look up the calorie counts ;-), searching for the  highest hee hee :-).

I estimate that I eat around 1500 calories a day. The trick seems to be that although some days I eat 2000-3000 cals (when I eat fast food, a burger, supersize fries and large coke :D), there are some days where I almost fast, and my food intake is very low. Mostly this is unconscious I guess.

Perhaps, once I get a wife, and she makes me eat food regularly, things might be different. Although considering my father is 5'3" and the same 47kgs, that might not happen.

One thing I am trying to consciously control is cholestorol. Although I never eat red meat, I make sure I dont eat too many eggs at one time. I've heard that even thin people like us, get high cholestorol easily. YMMV.

And diabetes of course is a killer, so I try not to eat too much sugar.
Arguing with an Electrical Engineer is liking wrestling with a pig in mud, after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it!
[ Parent ]

Your diet is entirely too healthy. (none / 2) (#252)
by James A C Joyce on Sun Mar 07, 2004 at 07:23:44 PM EST

Find something snackable that you can tolerate munching at absent-mindedly for hours a day.

I bought this account on eBay
[ Parent ]

"NO BULLSHIT" (none / 0) (#263)
by peterg222 on Tue Aug 31, 2004 at 11:50:01 AM EST

Doomed to failure in the UK I'm afraid - the negative connections associated with Mad Cow Disease would discourage even the desperate from buying your product. Even with the NO in front. People will also question the "NO".. Try "NO CHICKENSHIT" instead, but forget the Far East market in that case..


-- If it can't be done mobile it ain't real computing!

Don't Be So Fucking Fat | 263 comments (232 topical, 31 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!