yes, the only other person who shares my views on good healthy exercise and eating well is SM. we are a crazy fringe minority of whackos and intellectually suspicious people.
Where do you get this stuff?Dilbert_X wrote:
Theres a good amount of scientific evidence that a persons adult weight is mostly set before they are born - by the parents genes and the mothers diet before and during pregnancy.
Most of the rest of it is sealed during the first four years of childhood. Obviously the sort of obscene gluttony seen in Western countries adds to it.
When did I ever say I was anti exercise or eating right? I just said I don't enjoy going to the gym. Most of the reason I'm fat now is that I used to lift a lot, I stopped lifting, it turned to flab, and it's been impossible to lose the weight. Why would I want to go to the gym and put on muscle again?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes, the only other person who shares my views on good healthy exercise and eating well is SM. we are a crazy fringe minority of whackos and intellectually suspicious people.
I'm just anti food fads. I think people who eat gluten free food when they don't have celiac's disease are mongs that want attention. I think people who call sugar and hfcs drugs are also mongs who don't understand science.
We're inundated with marketing from the fitness industry every damn day, and the vast majority of the claims that they make are false. Acai berries, gluten free, soy milk, grass fed beef, etc. Most of the people that tout this stuff are brick stupid.
I said above somewhere that 2/3 of the research published in medical journals is un-repeatable and thus false. This is fact. Yet people like Dr. Oz and the fitness industry will latch onto whatever article helps them sell their product whether it's false or not, and then it gets translated by the American public as fact.
Last edited by Jay (2013-03-12 09:07:25)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6691
The popular media may be the totality of your exposure to nutrition and drug information.
no one is calling sugar a "drug". i called sugar a "substance", meaning something that chemically metabolises and has a very real effect on your body/mind. it was a counter to roc's disbelief that sugar foods and HFCS are 'dangerous' things to consume, in the same way that crack cocaine is generally regarded as not wise to consume. both trigger similar neurochemical responses in the brain, just to varying extremes and additional psychological effects. giving kids a sugar-rich diet from a young age - colloquially neutered and euphemised as the 'sweet tooth' - is really setting them up for a lifetime of dangerous over-consumption of sugars and glucose. it is not normal, and as dilbert said (as well as SM), it fucks with little kids diabetic systems from a very young age. this causes weight problems arising from metabolic change, at the very least. not to mention the whole other host of nasties.
"i do not understand science" is a funny claim to put to such an obvious point. on the contrary, i've been through the whole gamut of drug-use experience, and have a perfectly fine sensitivity to what i now put in my body, and its effects on my mental state and attitude. i see very little difference between people that eat a tub of ice-cream when they're feeling down, and people who have a cigarette/spliff to 'calm' themselves after a stressful activity/period. it's the same pattern of behaviour, as i said. nowhere am i trying to get sugar or corn syrup reclassified as a psychoactive or a narcotic. i'm just saying, people are very ignorant and blase about what they consume, arbitrarily sectioning off 'foodstuffs' into a different conceptual box to 'drugs and medication. i think contemporary science and research shows demonstrably enough that the mind/body divide in real physical and medicative terms is not the same as in the cartesian metaphysical distinction.
"i do not understand science" is a funny claim to put to such an obvious point. on the contrary, i've been through the whole gamut of drug-use experience, and have a perfectly fine sensitivity to what i now put in my body, and its effects on my mental state and attitude. i see very little difference between people that eat a tub of ice-cream when they're feeling down, and people who have a cigarette/spliff to 'calm' themselves after a stressful activity/period. it's the same pattern of behaviour, as i said. nowhere am i trying to get sugar or corn syrup reclassified as a psychoactive or a narcotic. i'm just saying, people are very ignorant and blase about what they consume, arbitrarily sectioning off 'foodstuffs' into a different conceptual box to 'drugs and medication. i think contemporary science and research shows demonstrably enough that the mind/body divide in real physical and medicative terms is not the same as in the cartesian metaphysical distinction.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-12 09:32:42)
I'm in favor of it because we have an obesity problem and people are dying. Sure, fat people are disgusting, but that's not what's driving my concern. Empirically verified? Have you seen the studies on high fructose corn syrup? Have you seen the simulations of what soda does to your GI tract and teeth? Are you really trying to argue that there is no evidence soda is unhealthy for you?Jay wrote:
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!Roc18 wrote:
That's the first step. And bad comparison.
I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't eat or drink, just like I don't like the government telling public institutions they need to have x% of students as a certain race (or other regulations contained in Affirmative Action). However, in this case, what is the detriment? A possibly slippery slope where eventually we are all eating soylent green? I don't think so.
Of course soda is unhealthy for you. I've never said otherwise. I just don't believe that it's the governments job to step in and limit peoples intake of it. I'd say petition the fast food companies that serve mega sized portions with every meal, but they (at least Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) are actually owned by the soft drink industry, so good luck.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm in favor of it because we have an obesity problem and people are dying. Sure, fat people are disgusting, but that's not what's driving my concern. Empirically verified? Have you seen the studies on high fructose corn syrup? Have you seen the simulations of what soda does to your GI tract and teeth? Are you really trying to argue that there is no evidence soda is unhealthy for you?Jay wrote:
It's not libertarian idealism. You can't make a single argument that can be empirically verified, you're only in favor of it because you find fat people disgusting. I find short people with long hair disgusting, should I ban people with those traits from walking the streets or force them to wear stilts and cut their hair?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
what if it's the only step? How come for everything the government does it's the first step towards tyranny? You're talking to someone who is very skeptical of government, yet the only argument against this beverage ban is some libertarian idealism that the government should like, stay out of our lives, man!
I don't like the idea of the government telling people what they can and can't eat or drink, just like I don't like the government telling public institutions they need to have x% of students as a certain race (or other regulations contained in Affirmative Action). However, in this case, what is the detriment? A possibly slippery slope where eventually we are all eating soylent green? I don't think so.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Enjoy your shitty "organic" hipster food promoted by the government while I eat my steak and mashed potatoes.
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-12 10:18:42)
Then what was your "you can't make a single argument that is empirically verified" statement about?
I don't think it's the government's job to necessarily regulate what people drink either, but like I said, we have an obesity problem. It's not getting better. The government is the BEST option and path of least resistance.
I don't think it's the government's job to necessarily regulate what people drink either, but like I said, we have an obesity problem. It's not getting better. The government is the BEST option and path of least resistance.
see you're a retard. Banning superlarge sodas means the government is promoting organic hipster food. It's black and white for you, isn't it?Roc18 wrote:
Enjoy your shitty "organic" hipster food promoted by the government while I eat my steak and mashed potatoes.
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It actually is black and white. Last time i checked food isn't illegal and shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Someone could have an eating disorder eating healthy food, the problem isn't the food, it's the people who can't control themselves. And society shouldn't be punished for it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
see you're a retard. Banning superlarge sodas means the government is promoting organic hipster food. It's black and white for you, isn't it?Roc18 wrote:
Enjoy your shitty "organic" hipster food promoted by the government while I eat my steak and mashed potatoes.
And yes Uzique hipsters do eat unusually healthy.
Because the primary argument that people make regarding limiting the diet choices of others is the whole 'if I have to pay for their health care, I get a say in what they eat' which in turn becomes my primary objection to socialized health care (one of many, but the biggest one). The problem with that is that it's been studied and found to be wrong. Fat people and smokers end up costing less money than healthy people that live longer do. They die sooner, they eat less pills etc. So the entire grounding for the argument is false, yet they push it anyway. Because they push it anyway, it leads me to believe that they really don't care about the cost, they just want to meddle with the lives of others by using government power. Every time the fundie christians do the same thing (abortion, gay rights etc.), liberals rant and scream and protest. I despise these petty tyrants.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Then what was your "you can't make a single argument that is empirically verified" statement about?
I don't think it's the government's job to necessarily regulate what people drink either, but like I said, we have an obesity problem. It's not getting better. The government is the BEST option and path of least resistance.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
or trolling magnificently
your country is fucking doomed if you think encouraging healthy eating is a suspicious and cynical "hippy-hipster" conspiracy. what a sad, fat fuck you are. EATING HEALTHY is good advice. it's scientific and nutritional - you know, factual, the sort of stuff you get a hard-on over. only when it doesn't suit you, it's a bunch of people in horn-rimmed glasses telling others how to look, right? jesus. i cannot believe how thick americans are about common sense eating. you LEAD THE WORLD in obesity figures. FORTY percent of adult americans. but no, it's just a bourgeoisie and effete hipster elite trying to force their granola bars on everyone!Jay wrote:
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
idiot. first-rate. idiot.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-12 10:37:20)
nobody ate healthily before hipsters and tumblr then? you mong. know who else eats unusually healthy, by american standards? asian people. know who else? swimmers. know who else? professors. know who else? doctors. omg! all these groups! let's arbitrarily dismiss the sound argument for eating well because a group whose identity politics i dislike ALSO HAPPEN to eat well.Roc18 wrote:
It actually is black and white. Last time i checked food isn't illegal and shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Someone could have an eating disorder eating healthy food, the problem isn't the food, it's the people who can't control themselves. And society shouldn't be punished for it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
see you're a retard. Banning superlarge sodas means the government is promoting organic hipster food. It's black and white for you, isn't it?Roc18 wrote:
Enjoy your shitty "organic" hipster food promoted by the government while I eat my steak and mashed potatoes.
And yes Uzique hipsters do eat unusually healthy.
also you know nothing about food regulations and the food industry. there are plenty of bans and laws on what you can and cannot eat. otherwise everyone would be getting food poisoning b/c big industry would cut corners and sell terribly sourced/low quality foodstuffs, to maximize profits. without law and regulation, there is no guarantee that the meat or fresh produce you eat is healthy/disease free. WHY do you even come to d&st? you are the stupidest kid on this forum. no exaggeration. go back to business administration and your excel spreadsheets.Roc18 wrote:
It actually is black and white. Last time i checked food isn't illegal and shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Someone could have an eating disorder eating healthy food, the problem isn't the food, it's the people who can't control themselves. And society shouldn't be punished for it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
see you're a retard. Banning superlarge sodas means the government is promoting organic hipster food. It's black and white for you, isn't it?Roc18 wrote:
Enjoy your shitty "organic" hipster food promoted by the government while I eat my steak and mashed potatoes.
And yes Uzique hipsters do eat unusually healthy.
pushed most fervently by hipsters? WTF are you talking about? I guess "hipster" is the new "liberal" in American lexicon.Jay wrote:
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
You're against health food because it's pushed by hipsters. You are stupid.
fat and stupid. and in angry denial.
Child, I never said there was anything wrong with eating healthy or exercising. I eat healthy. I don't eat a lot of sugar. I rarely drink soda. I probably eat too much meat. I don't eat enough vegetables. This is all known. I could drop weight if I really cared, but I don't. I don't feel unhealthy. I don't get sick. I have neither gained, nor lost, weight in years.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
your country is fucking doomed if you think encouraging healthy eating is a suspicious and cynical "hippy-hipster" conspiracy. what a sad, fat fuck you are. EATING HEALTHY is good advice. it's scientific and nutritional - you know, factual, the sort of stuff you get a hard-on over. only when it doesn't suit you, it's a bunch of people in horn-rimmed glasses telling others how to look, right? jesus. i cannot believe how thick americans are about common sense eating. you LEAD THE WORLD in obesity figures. FORTY percent of adults americans. but no, it's just a bourgeoisie and effete hipster elite trying to force their granola bars on everyone!Jay wrote:
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
idiot. first-rate. idiot.
The primary difference between us is that I lack your vanity. I'm not a peacock that cares overmuch what people think about how I look. You do, that's fine, but that's the crux of the argument here. You can't imagine having a body like mine. It would mortify you, so you don't understand why someone like me isn't getting off the couch and running to the gym at the first opportunity, or sucking down every bit of nutrition information in order to change. I'm a happy person uzi, I'm secure. I don't have a $3,000 coat to show off how fashionable I am. I'm married, I'm over 30, and I couldn't give a rats ass whether 20 something year old girls find me attractive anymore. When I was your age, I got all the ass I wanted, and I did care how I looked, now it's less of a priority.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Here come the personal attacks when you realize you can't win an argument. You're ignoring my point, but it's ok. If morbidly obese people are stupid enough and don't want to change their lifestyle then they should die 10-15 years faster. That's their business not the governments. You're talking about food regulation not food banning. Obviously their should be checks on the quality if food, that's a whole different point.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
also you know nothing about food regulations and the food industry. there are plenty of bans and laws on what you can and cannot eat. otherwise everyone would be getting food poisoning b/c big industry would cut corners and sell terribly sourced/low quality foodstuffs, to maximize profits. without law and regulation, there is no guarantee that the meat or fresh produce you eat is healthy/disease free. WHY do you even come to d&st? you are the stupidest kid on this forum. no exaggeration. go back to business administration and your excel spreadsheets.Roc18 wrote:
It actually is black and white. Last time i checked food isn't illegal and shouldn't be banned in any way shape or form. Someone could have an eating disorder eating healthy food, the problem isn't the food, it's the people who can't control themselves. And society shouldn't be punished for it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
see you're a retard. Banning superlarge sodas means the government is promoting organic hipster food. It's black and white for you, isn't it?
And yes Uzique hipsters do eat unusually healthy.
Last edited by Roc18 (2013-03-12 10:45:10)
No, I just ignore the fads and look down on people that follow them. Eating healthy is fine, but my definition of healthy is a lot less... fleeting.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
pushed most fervently by hipsters? WTF are you talking about? I guess "hipster" is the new "liberal" in American lexicon.Jay wrote:
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because steak and mashed potatos are the same nutritionally as supersize soda refills.
you are a fucking idiot. healthy eating is "hipster" now? i eat steak and mashed potatoes too, you fucking dimwit.
hurry up and die, you are a waste of carbon.
You're against health food because it's pushed by hipsters. You are stupid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Should obese people be allowed to vote?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
what a terrible and pained argument. only you could turn "being healthy" into some superficial "peacock" routine. how am i a peacock? i got in shape because i was afraid i was going to die. not because i wanted "hot ass" or because i cared how people thought i looked. lol you are ridiculous. as you get older, you should care MORE about eating healthy and watching your weight. having a wife isn't a hall-pass for infinite hamburgers. you will have less of a life to share with your settled other if you lead an unhealthy lifestyle. you are fucking stupid in the extreme to turn my argument for healthy eating into some 'youthful vanity' thing. my gf's dad is nearly 60 and he is in better shape than i am: he plays county seniors tennis, runs 4 times a week, and has a pretty strict gluten-free eating regimen. he's also a doctor, so you can rest assured its not some stupid 'housewife health fad' thing. it makes perfect sense: he wants to live healthily so he can see in more years.Jay wrote:
Child, I never said there was anything wrong with eating healthy or exercising. I eat healthy. I don't eat a lot of sugar. I rarely drink soda. I probably eat too much meat. I don't eat enough vegetables. This is all known. I could drop weight if I really cared, but I don't. I don't feel unhealthy. I don't get sick. I have neither gained, nor lost, weight in years.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
your country is fucking doomed if you think encouraging healthy eating is a suspicious and cynical "hippy-hipster" conspiracy. what a sad, fat fuck you are. EATING HEALTHY is good advice. it's scientific and nutritional - you know, factual, the sort of stuff you get a hard-on over. only when it doesn't suit you, it's a bunch of people in horn-rimmed glasses telling others how to look, right? jesus. i cannot believe how thick americans are about common sense eating. you LEAD THE WORLD in obesity figures. FORTY percent of adults americans. but no, it's just a bourgeoisie and effete hipster elite trying to force their granola bars on everyone!Jay wrote:
The health food movement began with the hippies in this country (hence "Crunchies") and has been pushed most fervently by hipsters, who then pushed it into the mainstream where it entered into the fad diet housewife scene.
idiot. first-rate. idiot.
The primary difference between us is that I lack your vanity. I'm not a peacock that cares overmuch what people think about how I look. You do, that's fine, but that's the crux of the argument here. You can't imagine having a body like mine. It would mortify you, so you don't understand why someone like me isn't getting off the couch and running to the gym at the first opportunity, or sucking down every bit of nutrition information in order to change. I'm a happy person uzi, I'm secure. I don't have a $3,000 coat to show off how fashionable I am. I'm married, I'm over 30, and I couldn't give a rats ass whether 20 something year old girls find me attractive anymore. When I was your age, I got all the ass I wanted, and I did care how I looked, now it's less of a priority.
there is just no reasoning with you on this discussion. you have major cognitive dissonance. you cast aspersions. diverting attention from painful truths. nobody is making the case to eat healthy because they are infatuated with self-love. hahahaha. what a desperate and pained attempt to make a pathetic insult in response to good counsel. you moron.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-12 10:53:12)