What's new

Dear Fat People

It's funny how those who clammer for smaller government and reduced spending, regulation, and red tape, want to ensure public money is spent on only the bare essentials which would require increased cost, regulations, and bureaucracy to the our welfare system. We're talking a complete overhaul of a program dedicated to the most powerless in our country.

Why spend so much and dedicate so many resources to keeping poor people from enjoying a smoke and beer like a regular human being?
 
Last edited:
It's funny how those who clammer for smaller government and reduced spending, regulation, and red tape, want to ensure public money is spent on only the bare essentials which would require increased cost, regulations, and bureaucracy to the our welfare system. We're talking a complete overhaul of a program dedicated to the most powerless in our country.

Why spend so much and dedicate so many resources to keeping poor people from enjoying a smoke and beer like a regular human being?

Well, here's what I see as an underlying paradox in regard to socialism and human rights. If we are entitled to some kind of formulaic social justice/material equality through government measures, the administrators/managers of the system are entitled to make the rules, let's say, on some reasoned principle. If we have government health care and we neglect good health practices, we are imposing burdens on others that they will have to help pay for. One bad health practice, like obesity in epidemic proportions, means inadequate resources for others' needs. . . .

The "Budgeteers" who want to make rules about welfare recipients making less-than-ideal budget choices don't look much different from the taut-lipped attendants at a death camp where "useless eaters" are being euthanized, to allow better use of scarce resources. . . . But it is something every socialist must face at some point.

Private charities to help the needy don't face that "social justice" equation, they make decisions with their own money using their own sensibilities about what will make the most difference to the most people. For me, the problem with socialism is the place where decisions are made. And the imperatives that creep in, in the thinking of the statist managers.
 
(i didn't read the whole thread, just the first couple pages so this may have been said already)
There are more eating disorders around than just over eating. While obesity is a huge problem and I believe we need to educate people and encourage a healthy lifestyle, we also have to be aware of the influence being cruel has on children. Did you know there are 5 year olds who put them selves on diet and exercise plans because they are afraid they are fat. How would you feel as a parent if your going child pinched their cute little tummy and said she was fat and needed to stop eating. Teenagers are killing themselves with anorexia and ballemia trying to fit into the size 0 perfect body the media paints for us. So while obesity is a problem, I don't think negative ads have proven successful.
 
Teenagers are killing themselves with anorexia and ballemia trying to fit into the size 0 perfect body the media paints for us. So while obesity is a problem, I don't think negative ads have proven successful.

You're right. Do you have any idea on where these body attitudes are coming from? Is it a bit like a chicken or the egg type of argument? What I mean by that is aren't women's magazines which are mostly editorialized and written by women putting forth these unattainable looks with every photoshopped image they include in their periodicals?
 
m3OeLKO.jpg
 
She can fit so many quarter pounders in that basket. Wow.
 
She can fit so many quarter pounders in that basket. Wow.
Lol.




I was at the swimming pool on Sunday. I was saddened by how many fat *** kids there were. Tons of fatties that hadn't even hit their teens yet. Little boys who wouldn't even take their shirts off due to embarrassment. No need to be embarrassed, there were tons of other fatties there too)

We are a fat nation
 
Lol.




I was at the swimming pool on Sunday. I was saddened by how many fat *** kids there were. Tons of fatties that hadn't even hit their teens yet. Little boys who wouldn't even take their shirts off due to embarrassment. No need to be embarrassed, there were tons of other fatties there too)

We are a fat nation

Were you saddened because there wasn't a single twinkie or chicken nugget to be found in a 5 mile radius? I get that. Sad.
 
KD on this scary recent Gallup poll:

https://www.gallup.com/poll/183155/obesity-rate-lowest-hawaii-highest-mississippi.aspx

Stop.

Right.

There.

There are only three types of foods.

Proteins
Carbohydrates
Fats
That's it.

Three.

1, 2, 3. Count 'em.

The average adult human requires somewhere around 1,700 to 2,100 Calories (actually kCal if you want to be precise) a day to maintain their body mass, assuming a reasonably-sedentary lifestyle. (Most people have a sedentary lifestyle even if they work out 30 minutes a day three times a week; to be "lightly active" you need to be on your feet and actively moving three to four hours a day (e.g. you might qualify as a teacher) and work out daily, yes, 7 days a week, for at least a half-hour. To qualify as "active" you would need to perform daily exercise of about two hours and spend most of your working day performing some sort of physical activity. To qualify as very active you would have to run for an hour a day and perform physical labor for work (e.g. roofing, carpentry, etc.))

If you eat less you will lose weight. If you eat more you will gain weight.

That's the simple part.

But life isn't that simple.

Let's say you wish to eat "mostly vegetables", as is propounded by the fool up above and a whole lot of other people too.

How many vegetables do you have to eat?

This is off a bag of brussels sprouts in my freezer. It's an 18oz bag, which is about two large (cereal size) bowl fulls to the top. It says I get 45 calories per serving and there are six in the bag, or for one bowl full of sprouts, I get an entire 135 calories. Incidentally, I also get several times my daily Vitamin C requirement by eating that bowl.

But I would have to eat more than 12 bowls full of brussels sprouts over a day's time to get my 1,700 minimum calories and that's assuming I sit on my ***! God help me if I actually go out and run five or six miles and my body's demand for fuel is up another thousand calories as a consequence!

Now I happen to like brussels sprouts, but I don't like them that much. This, by the way, is pretty typical for most vegetables in terms of caloric content; spinach, broccoli, you name it they all wind up with about the same caloric content per unit of volume. If you actually try to satiate yourself on these foods you're going to fail -- hard.

What will you probably wind up eating if you follow the prescribed mantra? Lots of fast carbohydrate vegetables, like potatoes.

Metabolically when it comes to quickly-metabolized carbohydrates you may as well eat table sugar.

Don't believe me. In fact, you'd be an idiot to believe me when you can prove whether I'm right or wrong for very little money and effort. Go to WalMart and buy a nice cheap glucose meter and some "starter" test strips (assuming you don't have a diabetic friend who will let you use theirs.) Your investment in this little experiment, with your own body, will be about $20; most of those meters come with a "sample" set of strips (usually 20 or so) which will be more than enough for what you're going to do. You'll also need a box of lancets (yes, you have to poke your finger and no, you never re-use those) and some soap and water so you don't give yourself an infection.

Sit at your kitchen table having not eaten anything (or drank anything containing sugars; water is safe of course) for at least 4 hours and then gobble up 1 cup of cooked potatoes. Eat nothing else (other than salt and/or pepper to taste for the 'tater) and drink only water. Wash and then poke your finger, running a test at 0 (just before you eat), at 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes and one hour later. If you want to be ambitious do two more at 1:30 and 2:00 but you probably won't need those to see what I'm talking about. Write all the data down and take a piece of graph paper and chart it. (While the formal definition of "fasting" blood sugar is 8 hours with no food 4 hours is enough for most people to get back to near normal; if your "pre-chow" number is over 110 or if you get a number over 180 at any time on this test get your *** to the Doc for a formal set of tests!)

The next day, again after four hours with no food of any sort or drinks containing sugar of any amount, take two tablespoons of ordinary table sugar. Eat it raw and chase it with a glass of water. Do the same tests.

Day three, same deal except this time take an 8oz package of cheese (e.g. a brick of cheddar, swiss, etc) and slice off 2-3oz of it. Chow that and repeat the test.

Let me know what you find out.

I assure you that you're going to be surprised; a cup of potatoes has about twice the fast carbohydrate content of the two tablespoons of sugar and yet one cup of potatoes is nothing compared to what many of you eat every day! The cheese, on the other hand, has almost zero carbohydrate. And by the way, breads do the same damn thing those potatoes do. Try it if you don't believe me; now you own the tool to check it on your own!

So where do you turn now that you understand what's going on -- and what you weren't told before?

This is where you get in trouble and it's why you're fat.

You go into the store and you see "Low Fat" on labels. Go back up above and read again -- there are only three foods; protein, carbohydrates and fats. If you have a food that is "Low Fat" then the fats had to have been replaced with something, and I will clue you in right now -- it's not protein as that (mostly) comes from animals! This means that what replaced the fat is carbohydrates and it is virtually a certainty that they are "fast" carbohydrates as well, especially if what you're eating is or contains a liquid such as salad dressing, soup, a "quick meal" or similar.

That is why you fail and it is why you're fat.

You're eating things that make you fat because you think that a "low fat" food will help you lose weight.

It will in fact, most of the time, do the exact opposite.

Fats, especially saturated (animal) fats, don't make you fat because they are absorbed in the gut slowly and do not stimulate an insulin response. They therefore leave you satiated for longer; simply put you don't get hungry as quickly. Carbohydrates, specifically fast carbohydrates, make you fat because they stimulate an insulin response and when your blood sugar level crashes on the back side of that response you get hungry. It is very difficult to avoid eating when you are hungry!

So here's what you are going to do:

You're going to stop worrying about animal fats in particular and instead stop eating all fast carbohydrates.

You eat eggs (or an omelet; yes, cheese is fine) with bacon in the morning -- not cereals and/or breads. Cook the omelet in either butter or part of the bacon fat. Reserve the excess fat from the bacon; do not throw it out. Drain it into a coffee mug and once it cools off a bit put it in the fridge; it will solidify and is perfectly fine like that for weeks at a time. (That, incidentally, is what saturated fats do; they typically don't go rancid.) Now have your veggies for lunch but take a dollop of bacon fat out of the mug and put it in the bowl when you nuke 'em in the microwave along with a bit of lemon pepper or seasoned salt. That both adds flavor and calories from said fat. You'll get physically full from the brussels sprouts and satiated from the fat you consumed and since there will be no carb-induced insulin spike you also won't get hungry two hours later and reach for the Doritos.

For dinner eat something that had a face and don't trim the fat; eat it instead; if you want to include more vegetables that's fine, provided they're not starchy and are colorful (e.g. green, red, etc.) Salad? Sure, but use full fat dressing if you want some (e.g. oil and vinegar, balsamic, full-fat ranch, etc.)

For flavoring purposes use pepper, salt, seasoned salt (e.g. Lawrey's or similar) and other spices. Enjoy them -- they have no calories and produce no insulin response. If you want to freak out about salt go ahead but for nearly everyone it's a non-issue; there is a small (very small!) percentage of the population that has a legitimate problem with sodium.

Do this for one week and I will tell you what will happen -- you'll lose 2-3 pounds immediately. Here's the bad news -- it's (mostly) water, as when you stop eating carbs all the time your body needs less water to process your food and you***** the excess out. You need to run a 3,000 calorie deficit, more or less, to lose an actual pound of body mass that is not water. That's a lot. Losing 1lb a week means running about a 500 calorie deficit a day, every day. The good news is that's very doable if you're not hungry all the time. If you keep this eating pattern up you'll start to lose real weight by the third week or so and it will keep coming off until you reach a body mass that is natural for you, at which point the weight loss will stop. You won't notice yourself eating more, but you will be -- just enough to keep your metabolism in balance.

Your body knows how to do this all on its own just like it knows how to make your heart beat like it's supposed to -- you just have to quit sabotaging the metabolic mechanisms that have been with man for a couple hundred thousand years (and which we've only been trashing for the last 50 or so.)

Note that it's nearly impossible to lose more than 2 lbs a week of actual body mass as your body will react if you try to cut your intake below about 1,200-1,500 calories a day by trimming its metabolic rate, thwarting what you're trying to do. So don't; starving yourself is bad news. On the flip side it's also almost impossible to gain more than 2 lbs a week; attempting to do so simply results in you crapping out the excess calories and that's usually very unpleasant. Yes, I know there are exceptions (e.g. extreme workout levels, extreme body building, etc) but we're talking about ordinary people living ordinary lives here.

Here's the good news: If you do this for a couple of weeks you're going to start waking up and not be hungry, probably as you get somewhere into the second week. If you're not hungry, why are you eating? Listen to your body; if you're not hungry at breakfast wait until lunch; cook the bacon and take it with you, then eat that on or with the broccoli or brussels sprouts.

If you want a check and balance on what you're eating it's simple. Take that label up above; subtract the "dietary fiber" from the carbohydrate count per serving you consume and add it all up. Keep the total carbohydrate count you consume daily under 50.

It's not possible to do this if you eat starchy things or sugars. It's flatly not possible folks. There are four (grams) of carbohydrates in each teaspoon of sugar; if you put two in your coffee in the morning you've had a 20% of your total carbohydrates allowed and you haven't eaten anything yet!

You also can't have any sugared sodas or other drinks (including "sweet tea".) One can of Coke is 39 grams of carbs, all sugar. That is, for all intents and purposes, all of your daily carbohydrate intake. You also can't be drinking juices for the most part, or "smoothies" and similar; not only are they full of sugars (natural or not) but a juice is much more quickly absorbed than the raw fruit would be and it contains the sugar content from many of the fruits. As just one example one 8 oz cup of orange juice contains roughly four oranges; eating one orange is vastly preferable to drinking that juice!

Finally, eat no hydrogenated oils of any sort. If you see that word on a label don't buy the product and if you already have it in your house throw it out. Those oils all contain transfats to some degree and they are extremely bad for you. If you like fried foods and eat out pester your restaurant and tell them you want them to fry in lard or tallow; they'll probably look at you like you have three heads but I assure you that's far better for you than the hydrogenated oils they are probably using. McDonalds, as just one example, used to fry in tallow before the idiots started running the asylum.

You know if you're fat folks.

I just explained how not to be any more.

You decide.
 
Great read, Viny, up to and after this part:

"Your body knows how to do this all on its own just like it knows how to make your heart beat like it's supposed to -- you just have to quit sabotaging the metabolic mechanisms that have been with man for a couple hundred thousand years (and which we've only been trashing for the last 50 or so.)"

Which is nothing short of utter nonsense. Hunter-gatherers showed that the human body can exist healthily on a wide range of diets, some very extreme. Humanity has been subsisting largely on grains for the last 12,000 or so years. Most mid-evil diets were highly grain-based.
 
I think this guy is onto something. But it isn't just a no-carb diet. That is a fad and in the long run tough to maintain. But what he is onto is actually what has been preached at us since we were kids: a balanced diet. Fats, carbs, proteins all working together. We usually encounter health issues (over/under-weight, blood pressure, die-beetus, etc.) when our diet gets out of balance. Eat real foods, and a large variety of foods, and you can absorb the occasional chocolate cake or cheese cake or coke with dinner or whatever the case may be. I am a firm believer there is no magic bullet other than restraint and smart eating and upping your activity level. That is why I think Weight Watchers has consistently the best program out there if you have to have a program.

To go further into this, as frank pointed out our progenitors adapted to a wide variety of diets, but they also imbued in us as a protection mechanism the propensity to add weight (read: calories or energy) in times of plenty to help carry us through times of not-so-plenty. So basically the fat survived to mate over the tough winter, the skinny died and may have been a convenient meal, who knows. But the genetic makeup is generally one to add weight easily. And now, since for the vast majority of humans we live in a permanent time of plenty it is not strange at all that we tend toward the bigger side.

Add to that the fact that we put the most work into developing the infrastructure to produce the foods we needed and wanted. So go back 150-200 years and processed sugar was generally a luxury, and a cash crop, and grain was only available if you could farm it or trade for it, and nowhere near as easy to get and process as vegetables, which took all of picking it and eating it to get at the goods, and so these (grain, sugar, etc.) became the focus of agricultural advancement. Meaning they went from relatively expensive/rare to common and cheap, flipping places with vegetables from 150 years ago when everyone had a veggie garden and a root cellar or similar and could produce their own veggies, or someone else did we could trade with, or trade money for, so veggies tended to be cheap.

Now it is reversed, and providing fresh vegetables, which do not shelve well, is expensive. So our diet is largely a product of advancement and progress, and the world now generally eats cheaply. But what they eat tends to be a reduced variety compared to 150 years ago. And so our genes to add fat stores are doing their job as we reduce our own physical work loads or need to perform physical work, and add in cheap high-calorie-dense but low nutritionally-dense foods, and as a society we get fat.

So for the average American if they simply add variety to their diet and replace the staple fast food burger with something home made or replace potatoes with veggies, and eat real whole foods instead of processed foods, their weight will tend to normalize. Seriously if we as a nation just cut portion size and that was all we did we would collectively lose weight. Replace a few burgers a week with a tuna sandwich and carrot sticks and even more weight will drop. Find variety and whole foods in your diet again and you will become healthier, and without the need for special programs or protein shakes or anything else. Just grab a glass of water instead of a can of coke and some carrots instead of chips or fries once in a while and there you go, back on the road to a healthy weight.
 
Interesting discussion, everyone.

As someone involved in the nutrition industry, I tend to side with LogGrad here. It really comes down to a balanced diet, smart portions, and exercise. There's always a new fad diet, but I think you can't really go wrong with that simple advice.

As far as what can be done on the political/social scale to fix that problem? I'm still not sure. But I don't think public shaming of individuals is the answer.
 
I think this guy is onto something. But it isn't just a no-carb diet. That is a fad and in the long run tough to maintain. But what he is onto is actually what has been preached at us since we were kids: a balanced diet. Fats, carbs, proteins all working together. We usually encounter health issues (over/under-weight, blood pressure, die-beetus, etc.) when our diet gets out of balance. Eat real foods, and a large variety of foods, and you can absorb the occasional chocolate cake or cheese cake or coke with dinner or whatever the case may be. I am a firm believer there is no magic bullet other than restraint and smart eating and upping your activity level. That is why I think Weight Watchers has consistently the best program out there if you have to have a program.

To go further into this, as frank pointed out our progenitors adapted to a wide variety of diets, but they also imbued in us as a protection mechanism the propensity to add weight (read: calories or energy) in times of plenty to help carry us through times of not-so-plenty. So basically the fat survived to mate over the tough winter, the skinny died and may have been a convenient meal, who knows. But the genetic makeup is generally one to add weight easily. And now, since for the vast majority of humans we live in a permanent time of plenty it is not strange at all that we tend toward the bigger side.

Add to that the fact that we put the most work into developing the infrastructure to produce the foods we needed and wanted. So go back 150-200 years and processed sugar was generally a luxury, and a cash crop, and grain was only available if you could farm it or trade for it, and nowhere near as easy to get and process as vegetables, which took all of picking it and eating it to get at the goods, and so these (grain, sugar, etc.) became the focus of agricultural advancement. Meaning they went from relatively expensive/rare to common and cheap, flipping places with vegetables from 150 years ago when everyone had a veggie garden and a root cellar or similar and could produce their own veggies, or someone else did we could trade with, or trade money for, so veggies tended to be cheap.

Now it is reversed, and providing fresh vegetables, which do not shelve well, is expensive. So our diet is largely a product of advancement and progress, and the world now generally eats cheaply. But what they eat tends to be a reduced variety compared to 150 years ago. And so our genes to add fat stores are doing their job as we reduce our own physical work loads or need to perform physical work, and add in cheap high-calorie-dense but low nutritionally-dense foods, and as a society we get fat.

So for the average American if they simply add variety to their diet and replace the staple fast food burger with something home made or replace potatoes with veggies, and eat real whole foods instead of processed foods, their weight will tend to normalize. Seriously if we as a nation just cut portion size and that was all we did we would collectively lose weight. Replace a few burgers a week with a tuna sandwich and carrot sticks and even more weight will drop. Find variety and whole foods in your diet again and you will become healthier, and without the need for special programs or protein shakes or anything else. Just grab a glass of water instead of a can of coke and some carrots instead of chips or fries once in a while and there you go, back on the road to a healthy weight.

You're actually backwards on grains vs. fruits and vegetables. Civilizations were formed 10-12,000 years ago because of grain (and later legume) cultivation and have ever been since. It's a basic calculation of caloric needs and storage requirements. We needed a readily available supply of cheap calories to support expanding societies. You simply cannot eat enough vegetables to consume your daily intake requirements, and they don't keep anywhere near as well as grains (potatoes excepted for both). Fruit possibly could sustain you but it has a short shelf life.

I don't know much about cuisine 150-200 years ago, but if fruits and veggies became a higher % of diets it was because the population could afford a more expensive diet, not the other way around.
 
Well, the brewer in me wants to point out that it is VERY likely that the first cultivation of grain was used to make a sort of beer. The first types of beer would have been grains soaked in water, heated somewhat, then boiled, then aged and then consumed as a sort of porridge with an alcohol content around 1-2%. The brewing process both softened the grain to make it easier to eat and made it somewhat acidic as well as providing some alcohol. Both the acidity and alcohol helped to preserve it. Obviously the brewing process itself killed any pre-existing bacteria.

All the earliest writings of humans contain tons of talk about beer. Tons. More words for beer than the eskimos have for snow.

Here is a cuneiform word for beer.

cuniform-symbol-draft.jpg
 
Well, the brewer in me wants to point out that it is VERY likely that the first cultivation of grain was used to make a sort of beer. The first types of beer would have been grains soaked in water, heated somewhat, then boiled, then aged and then consumed as a sort of porridge with an alcohol content around 1-2%. The brewing process both softened the grain to make it easier to eat and made it somewhat acidic as well as providing some alcohol. Both the acidity and alcohol helped to preserve it. Obviously the brewing process itself killed any pre-existing bacteria.

All the earliest writings of humans contain tons of talk about beer. Tons. More words for beer than the eskimos have for snow.

Here is a cuneiform word for beer.

cuniform-symbol-draft.jpg

My initial response is that that was a byproduct that became a useful form of preservation centuries later. But, considering the brewer drinker in me, I could see it as the other way around.
 
My initial response is that that was a byproduct that became a useful form of preservation centuries later. But, considering the brewer drinker in me, I could see it as the other way around.

There is pretty conclusive evidence that beer was made millennia before bread.

So imagine this:

You're a nomadic human in a band of a dozen or two other people. You roam around killing the occasional animal, collecting the occasional fruit or vegetable. Things aren't bad, per se, your group has its **** together, knows where to be at what time of year, has a few spots prepped for next season, all that super advanced stuff. You guys are doing it right.

Then, one year, you collect some grain from your normal spot. You put it in some of the fanciest pots your tribe has. You hit your local cave and set up camp. Clouds collect and you all figure it's gonna rain. You put the pots put to collect some water and to soften your grain. Before the weather breaks another band comes along and pushes you out of one of your favorite caves. You move on. Before the end of the warm season you come back. You know where you stashed the grain and you come looking for it. There it is, only it tastes a bit off. You're all pretty damn hungry so you put it in a pot and boil it for a second. As the hot porridge goes around it's pretty clear the mood is lightening. Laughter, happiness, connection. As you all gorge yourselves on the porridge you start feeling a bit different.

Next year you set the pots of grain out on purpose and leave them for the summer. In the fall you return for the porridge party.

Next year you do it again, it's starting to get to be a thing.

Fast forward 100 years. There have been a few who have devoted themselves to making this special porridge. They can make it as long as they have grain and a fire.

Fast forward a couple more years, everyone decides they want special porridge all year long. They establish a permanent settlement and start growing grain.

Fast forward...modern civilization.
 
Top