If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
Diet wars turn family feud http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/g...t_m.php?page=1 "Given what has transpired since, the backlash against 'What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie' is beginning to take on the look of a sad, strange hysteria whose time has mercifully passed. Taubes spent five years producing an exhaustively footnoted, 600-page book called Good Calories, Bad Calories, which was published in 2007. It landed quietly, but has since come to command a kind of totemic status among paleo dieters and pragmatic health professionals, and is widely read in the bariatric, metabolic and diabetes research community..." "Poor Taubes. No one warned him that 600 pages of evidence were never going to be enough. The theory that weight gain boils down 'calories-in, calories-out' is the last man standing in the diet wars. The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." We're winning the war, but the fight is far from over. Too many vested interests! -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
Dogman quoted:
The theory that weight gain boils down 'calories-in, calories-out' is the last man standing in the diet wars. Old time low carbers have known this is false for a very long time. Calories are a useful approximation in a limited set of applications. The real equation is grams of fat into storage minus grams of fat out of storage equals net change in the amount of fat. Find a plan that drives fat out of storage and you have a winning system all else being equal. Find a plan that only included limited times of hunger and the win gets even bigger. Early low carbing moves fat out of storage better than other plans. All along low carbing results in less hunger for more people. The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. Some of these concepts are much easier to test than the adherents want to believe. Humans instinctively crave food that is carby, fat and salty. The carby part is addictive so products stress carbs. Chemicals other than sodium chloride can be added to alt to increase appetite. Companies don't even have to have a deliberate plan to take advantage of these instinctive cravings. All companies need to do is make more of the products that sell better, make less of the products that sell worse, keep trying variations on products to continue development to incrase profitability. Any product that hits the instinctive human cravings will sell better. Any product that triggers addictive behavior patterns will sell better. The market will tune the rest until we have vast numbers of fat people even wtihout any intent for that to happen. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. Try running the calorie arithmatic as if this were one of its valid applications. A marathon is a pound of fat. To exercise enough to force loss it takes so much time on the tradmill employed people lose their jobs and married people lose their families. But check out the numbers to prevent weight regain and the story is very different. Half an hour every day or an hour every other day burns as many calories as the typical weight gain between diets. That's a pretty good preventative. Now check the national database of the folks who have managed to keep off weight they lost. The huge majority of them continue to exercise often and long. It's nearly enough to account for the entire database. It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. Think of how these folks work. When they are not doing other exercise they are on treadmills to fill out 16 hour days. it comes down to "A marathon is a pound of fat". They keep these folks doing at least that much work every day. They do it to the exclusion of their jobs and away from their families. They don't do it as their "job". They do it as their "life". It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:41:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: [...] The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? On the other hand, either you accept personal responsibility for your actions, or you don't. Those who do, don't usually have these problems. Humans instinctively crave food that is carby, fat and salty. The carby part is addictive so products stress carbs. Chemicals other than sodium chloride can be added to alt to increase appetite. Companies don't even have to have a deliberate plan to take advantage of these instinctive cravings. All companies need to do is make more of the products that sell better, make less of the products that sell worse, keep trying variations on products to continue development to incrase profitability. Any product that hits the instinctive human cravings will sell better. Any product that triggers addictive behavior patterns will sell better. The market will tune the rest until we have vast numbers of fat people even wtihout any intent for that to happen. Well, you've identified the problem, but... It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Better to lose the weight first, primarily through diet and very moderate (safe) exercise, then, once the weight is lost, decide on what kind of exercise is right for you. It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. Think of how these folks work. When they are not doing other exercise they are on treadmills to fill out 16 hour days. it comes down to "A marathon is a pound of fat". They keep these folks doing at least that much work every day. They do it to the exclusion of their jobs and away from their families. They don't do it as their "job". They do it as their "life". Yeah, and it's sad to watch. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed. Yep. GREED kills. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Aug 2, 4:45*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:41:44 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: [...] The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? What he means and which I agree with is that clearly it usually doesn't work in practice. A lot of people try to excercise personal responsibility when it comes to dieting. They try a variety of diets and still fail because in the end, it's very difficult. And choosing say a low fat diet instead of a low carb one just makes it a lot harder. On the other hand, either you accept personal responsibility for your actions, or you don't. Those who do, don't usually have these problems. That's like saying if you fall into a well, personal responsibility will get you out. Humans instinctively crave food that is carby, fat and salty. *The carby part is addictive so products stress carbs. *Chemicals other than sodium chloride can be added to alt to increase appetite. *Companies don't even have to have a deliberate plan to take advantage of these instinctive cravings. *All companies need to do is make more of the products that sell better, make less of the products that sell worse, keep trying variations on products to continue development to incrase profitability. Any product that hits the instinctive human cravings will sell better. Any product that triggers addictive behavior patterns will sell better. The market will tune the rest until we have vast numbers of fat people even wtihout any intent for that to happen. Well, you've identified the problem, but... Yes the problem for you is that Doug apparently doesn't buy your vast evil conspiracy theory either. Companies are simply producing the products that people want. It';s how the free market works. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. *But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Which of course is nonsense. That's your problem in general. You take something that has a bit of validity and then run it out to extremes, turn it into nonsense, and disregard the mountain of evidence that says you're wrong. You brought up The Biggest Loser show. What exactly is going on there? They are losing weight at fantastic rates on a variety of diets and a lot of it is because they are excercising at levels few ordinary folks would ever reach. They also have a huge support and motivation system that almost no one else excercising "personal responsibility" has. Maybe you should try excersice and see the effects. I have and it works. Better to lose the weight first, primarily through diet and very moderate (safe) exercise, then, once the weight is lost, decide on what kind of exercise is right for you. First you argue that excercise doesn't do any good and can make you gain weight, now you're endorsing some excercise. I don't know of any health authority that says excercise has to be "very moderate" for the typical person trying to lose weight. You have a source for that? It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. Think of how these folks work. *When they are not doing other exercise they are on treadmills to fill out 16 hour days. *it comes down to "A marathon is a pound of fat". *They keep these folks doing at least that much work every day. *They do it to the exclusion of their jobs and away from their families. *They don't do it as their "job". *They do it as their "life". Yeah, and it's sad to watch. Then don't watch it. But don't come in here and claim that it doesn't work during the course of the show. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. *No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed.. Yep. *GREED kills. Yes, and greed has also produced everything from all the drugs that have saved the lives of hundreds of millions to the iPhone. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:21:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? What he means and which I agree with is that clearly it usually doesn't work in practice. What? Are you psychic, too? Personal responsibility works. I don't know how taking responsibility for your weight problem wouldn't work. By definition, taking responsibility for it means you will succeed. A lot of people try to excercise personal responsibility when it comes to dieting. If they were taking responsibility, it would work. It stops working when they stop taking responsibility. They try a variety of diets and still fail because in the end, it's very difficult. It can be difficult, but that's what taking responsibility means. You do the difficult things as well as the easy ones. And choosing say a low fat diet instead of a low carb one just makes it a lot harder. There are all kinds of ways to make it harder, but if one takes responsibility, he or she will eventually find something that works. Throwing one's hands in the air and giving up is the personification of not taking responsibility. On the other hand, either you accept personal responsibility for your actions, or you don't. Those who do, don't usually have these problems. That's like saying if you fall into a well, personal responsibility will get you out. Who do you think will get out of the well fastest? The guy who sits on his hands and does nothing? Or the guy who tries and tries to find different ways to climb out, screams loudly, etc? In the movie "127 Hours," a true story, the rock climber fell into a crevasse out in the middle of nowhere. His arm was wedged into the rocks, and he couldn't escape. He created ways to trap rain water, to survive on. When he ran out of ways to escape, food, water, etc., and realized that no one was coming for him, he accepted responsibility for getting himself out. He cut off his own arm with his knife, tied off the stub, and proceeded to hike his way out. He eventually came across some hikers, and they called for help and he was flown out by helicopter. He lived, because he took responsibility for saving his live. Had he sat on his hands and did nothing, he would have died. Humans instinctively crave food that is carby, fat and salty. *The carby part is addictive so products stress carbs. *Chemicals other than sodium chloride can be added to alt to increase appetite. *Companies don't even have to have a deliberate plan to take advantage of these instinctive cravings. *All companies need to do is make more of the products that sell better, make less of the products that sell worse, keep trying variations on products to continue development to incrase profitability. Any product that hits the instinctive human cravings will sell better. Any product that triggers addictive behavior patterns will sell better. The market will tune the rest until we have vast numbers of fat people even wtihout any intent for that to happen. Well, you've identified the problem, but... Yes the problem for you is that Doug apparently doesn't buy your vast evil conspiracy theory either. Companies are simply producing the products that people want. It';s how the free market works. I figured that was common knowledge by now. But that's not taking responsibility for your own health. If one takes resonibility for one's own health, it shouldn't/doesn't matter what certain companies make. To the best of my knowledge, no one with a gun is forcing people to eat fast food, sugar, refined and processed foods, etc. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. *But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Which of course is nonsense. That's your problem in general. You take something that has a bit of validity and then run it out to extremes, turn it into nonsense, and disregard the mountain of evidence that says you're wrong. There is a mountain of evidence out there, anecdotal and scientific, that suggests that exercising simply to lose weight is essentially a waste of time. If you don't eat properly, you can exercise until the cows come how, and you won't lose much if any weight. If you're exercising properly, you're probably building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat, so you're probably going to gain weight, not lose it. Again, this is something that you can prove to yourself, and pretty easily. You brought up The Biggest Loser show. What exactly is going on there? They are losing weight at fantastic rates on a variety of diets and a lot of it is because they are excercising at levels few ordinary folks would ever reach. Exactly! No one is going to do that! They also have a huge support and motivation system that almost no one else excercising "personal responsibility" has. Exactly! And no one is going to have that. That's where personal responsibility comes in. Maybe you should try excersice and see the effects. I have and it works. Yes, it works, but it doesn't make you lose weight. It just makes you hungrier, then you eat more food, and losing weight becomes that much harder. Better to lose the weight first, primarily through diet and very moderate (safe) exercise, then, once the weight is lost, decide on what kind of exercise is right for you. First you argue that excercise doesn't do any good and can make you gain weight, now you're endorsing some excercise. Of course I endorse exercise, you moron! But not to lose weight! We should exercise to become more fit, etc. The vast majority of us are not even fit enough to exercise, because we're so overweight that anything but walking short distances is dangerous to our joints, our heart, etc. I don't know of any health authority that says excercise has to be "very moderate" for the typical person trying to lose weight. You have a source for that? Find me a "health authority" who suggests that a seriously obese man can do anything but moderate exercise! Seriously obese people can barely walk, much less enter a CrossFit competition. So they should focus on their diets (which is hard enough to do, without adding insult to injury, by trying to strenuously exercise, too), and try to get at least some exercise, but not enough to injure themselves. Injury just makes people give up altogether. It keeps us watching shows like The Biggest Loser. Think of how these folks work. *When they are not doing other exercise they are on treadmills to fill out 16 hour days. *it comes down to "A marathon is a pound of fat". *They keep these folks doing at least that much work every day. *They do it to the exclusion of their jobs and away from their families. *They don't do it as their "job". *They do it as their "life". Yeah, and it's sad to watch. Then don't watch it. You don't get to tell me what to do, Pusher Man. But don't come in here and claim that it doesn't work during the course of the show. I can do whatever I want to do, and you can't do **** about it, Little Man. If you think Biggest Loser is a reflection of what goes on in the Real World, you're even more delusional than I figured. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. *No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed. Yep. *GREED kills. Yes, and greed has also produced everything from all the drugs that have saved the lives of hundreds of millions to the iPhone. I don't know. Subtract all the people it harmed or killed from the people it helped, and it's probably a wash. But the point is, it KILLS. It's indisputable. And if you don't take responsibility for your own health, it'll likely KILL you, too. See: Darwin, and natural selection. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? On the other hand, either you accept personal responsibility for your actions, or you don't. Those who do, don't usually have these problems. It's the same as when people say moderation always works. I reply with the same mall comment and ask if they think there's even one fat person at the mall who has failed to try moderation again and again and again. The usual response is they should try harder. And harder. And harder. Until it does work. My response is that's not what moderation means. They never seem to get how much effort they actually mean nor what moderation means. Humans instinctively crave food that is carby, fat and salty. The carby part is addictive so products stress carbs. Chemicals other than sodium chloride can be added to alt to increase appetite. Companies don't even have to have a deliberate plan to take advantage of these instinctive cravings. All companies need to do is make more of the products that sell better, make less of the products that sell worse, keep trying variations on products to continue development to incrase profitability. Any product that hits the instinctive human cravings will sell better. Any product that triggers addictive behavior patterns will sell better. The market will tune the rest until we have vast numbers of fat people even wtihout any intent for that to happen. Well, you've identified the problem, but... On the one hand "It's not my fault. I'm powerless in the face of corporate greed and propaganda" is a failing strategy. On the other hand "It's my responsibility. All I need to is become a hermit so I am not immersed in the endless media and peer messages to eat the wrong way" is also a failing strategy. The gripping hand is we all know that the law suit against Nuttella for claiming to be a health food is legal harassment. The fact of the matter is we get both messages that it's all personal responsibility *and* messages to do the wrong thing. In endless streams. With both margarine and low fat the people who started pushing them sincerely believed they were doing the right thing. Vast propaganda engines were created to push those ideas even though they were objectively harmful. In time the propaganda engine turned against margarine as it's bad for everyone. Low fat is good for probably more than a quarter of the population. It's a far harder sell to stop pushing it so the roll off of that propaganda engine is much slower. Worse there's the temptation to push low carb as the next all encompassing solution for everyone because people really do want the magic one size fits all solution for everyone. Personal responsibility *can* *not* work in the face of endless pressure to do the wrong thing. People jumped on the low fat bandwagon in droves and got fat. But it's worse. There is the profit motive of business that pushes fast food. That message can't and won't change based on better knowledge about what actually works in diet. It validates all that wasted time on the treadmill that people like Kolata and others endorse. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Better to lose the weight first, primarily through diet and very moderate (safe) exercise, then, once the weight is lost, decide on what kind of exercise is right for you. Better still to start including some exercise any exercise from the gate and build appropriately as you lose. It's a different topic for how to deal with the fact that there are zero physical pleasure in exercise to most of us. Who here has ever felt any of that endorphin thing even when in peak condition for high school sports or whatever? Motivation is easy when there's a drug effect from doing the exercis eand that does happen for some people. For some people who've never gotten fat in the first place. Motivation is a lot harder for those of us who have never experienced that in our lives. The focus is different. Pride in accomplishment. The very indirect pleasure of better health. Very much a different topic. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed. Yep. GREED kills. But it's duty not greed. At least for some. Businesses have a duty to profit. Businesses hire greedy folks to implement the process or they just plain hire professionals who do it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Aug 3, 11:50*am, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:21:24 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: The principle anchors the comforting American belief that personal responsibility explains all of our ills. If personal responsibility worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? What he means and which I agree with is that clearly it usually doesn't work in practice. What? *Are you psychic, too? Doug will probably weigh in with his thougts. And I'll bet my take is right. By saying that personal responsibility isn't working he means that it doesn't work from a practical perspective. Capiche now? Personal responsibility works. *I don't know how taking responsibility for your weight problem wouldn't work. By definition, taking responsibility for it means you will succeed. It doesn't work because like Doug said, if it did you would not see all the fat people at the mall. We would not have an obesity epidemic. A lot of people try to excercise personal responsibility when it comes to dieting. If they were taking responsibility, it would work. It stops working when they stop taking responsibility. That's like arguing that they wouldn't be fat if they weren't fat. They try a variety of diets and still fail because in the end, it's very difficult. It can be difficult, but that's what taking responsibility means. *You do the difficult things as well as the easy ones. OK. We have people who are personally responsible in all other aspects of their lives. They have good jobs. They pay their bills. They put their kids through school. The stay out of trouble with the law. So, clearly most people out there have a high degree of personal responsibility. But yet, when they try to lose weight, they fail. The obvious point is that the level of personal responsibility that you require them to have, is impossible for most people. It's like saying willpower can overcome anything for most people, including holding their hand in a fire. It just doesn't work that way and hence the "personal responsibility" approach is a proven failure when it comes to dieting. Throwing one's hands in the air and giving up is the personification of not taking responsibility. And tilting at windmills, pretending that personal responsibility is going to somehow cure obesity is just as foolish. Yes the problem for you is that Doug apparently doesn't buy your vast evil conspiracy theory either. *Companies are simply producing the products that people want. *It';s how the free market works. I figured that was common knowledge by now. You wouldn't know it from your constant bitching about drug companies. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Which of course is nonsense. * *That's your problem in general. You take something that has a bit of validity and then run it out to extremes, turn it into nonsense, and disregard the mountain of evidence that says you're wrong. There is a mountain of evidence out there, anecdotal and scientific, that suggests that exercising simply to lose weight is essentially a waste of time. It's no more a waste of time than expecting "personal responsibility" to cure obesity. Neither has proven successful in reversing the obesity epidemic. If you don't eat properly, you can exercise until the cows come how, and you won't lose much if any weight. BS. The Nazi concentration camps proved that. If you're exercising properly, you're probably building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat, so you're probably going to gain weight, not lose it. I see, so the 400lb fat guys on The Biggest Loser wound up at 450lbs. Which season was that? Again, this is something that you can prove to yourself, and pretty easily. You brought up The Biggest Loser show. *What exactly is going on there? * They are losing weight at fantastic rates on a variety of diets and a lot of it is because they are excercising at levels few ordinary folks would ever reach. Exactly! No one is going to do that! The issue isn't that no one is going to do that. You're really confused here. First you argue that personal responsibility works. Then you argue that excercising does not. Now you agree that people on that show were losing weight due in part to the excercise. So, why isn't this then an issue where excercise works, but people just won't do it in the real world. Just like people have proven that personal responsibility doesn't work in dieting either? They also have a huge support and motivation system that almost no one else excercising "personal responsibility" has. Exactly! And no one is going to have that. That's where personal responsibility comes in. Oh God, you just go in circles. Maybe you should try excersice and see the effects. *I have and it works. Yes, it works, but it doesn't make you lose weight. You just agreed above that it did make people lose weight on Biggest Loser. First you argue that excercise doesn't do any good and can make you gain weight, now you're endorsing some excercise. Of course I endorse exercise, you moron! But not to lose weight! *We should exercise to become more fit, etc. The vast majority of us are not even fit enough to exercise, because we're so overweight that anything but walking short distances is dangerous to our joints, our heart, etc. Speak for yourself. If you're so fat you can't excercise, that's an issue of personal responsibility.... I don't know of any health authority that says excercise has to be "very moderate" for the typical person trying to lose weight. * You have a source for that? Find me a "health authority" who suggests that a seriously obese man can do anything but moderate exercise! Seriously obese people can barely walk, much less enter a CrossFit competition. The experience we all see on The Biggest Loser says you're wrong. And clearly they have health authorities who have cleared the people participating. Now, who should we all believe, you or our lying eyes? Yes, and greed has also produced everything from all the drugs that have saved the lives of hundreds of millions to the iPhone. I don't know. Subtract all the people it harmed or killed from the people it helped, and it's probably a wash. Good. Next time you're seriously ill, call a hippie and try some meditation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:39:19 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: [...] Personal responsibility *can* *not* work in the face of endless pressure to do the wrong thing. People jumped on the low fat bandwagon in droves and got fat. I disagree. If something isn't working, try something else. Do more research, etc. Taking responsibility means that you won't quit until you find a solution. That's what it means to me, anyway. You bet. But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Better to lose the weight first, primarily through diet and very moderate (safe) exercise, then, once the weight is lost, decide on what kind of exercise is right for you. Better still to start including some exercise any exercise from the gate and build appropriately as you lose. Sure, I don't have a problem with that (which is why I said moderate exercise, e.g., walking), provided the person understands that his weight loss will be coming from eating properly, not from exercising. And that it might make him even hungrier, cause injury, etc. It leaves the door open to low-calorie, high-carbohydrate food products that make the economy hum, are portable, do not require we learn to cook, make children stop crying, and taste good. Any efforts at reporting science to the contrary will always have a rough road." And all that industry need do is observe what sells well, make more of it, and advertise it. No ulterior motives othe than profit are needed. Yep. GREED kills. But it's duty not greed. At least for some. Businesses have a duty to profit. Businesses hire greedy folks to implement the process or they just plain hire professionals who do it. Frankly, I don't care what businesses do. I'm a free-market capitalist. And I wouldn't even want to restrict a company's right to sell CRAP (I think Nanny Bloomberg should be tarred and feathered!). Because I believe in personal responsibility, and it's my personal responsibility to make the effort, do the research, etc., and not to eat that CRAP. Or get that FAT. Waiting around for companies, and people, for that matter, to do the right thing, is an exercise in futility. I can control what *I* do, so it doesn't really matter to me what *they* do. It takes a looooong time to correct most errors (I think we can agree on that), and I only get a certain amount of time on this planet. But I don't have to wait around for them to finally get it right; I can get it right myself. Today. And I do. The only person responsible for my heath is moi. Not the government, not the scientists, not the doctors. Just little ol' moi. Again, that's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: I don't know exactly what you mean by that, Doug. How does "personal responsibility" not work? What he means and which I agree with is that clearly it usually doesn't work in practice. What? *Are you psychic, too? Doug will probably weigh in with his thougts. And I'll bet my take is right. By saying that personal responsibility isn't working he means that it doesn't work from a practical perspective. Capiche now? Yes, I clearly understand by now, that you're ignorant fascist doofus, Was that your point? But whether taking personal responsibilty is "practical," is a moot point. Because it almost always works when someone actually takes responsibility rather than just talk about it. That is, walking the walk, rather than just talking the talk. Aspirins don't work either, if you don't take them. Personal responsibility works. *I don't know how taking responsibility for your weight problem wouldn't work. By definition, taking responsibility for it means you will succeed. It doesn't work Of course it does! The evidence is all around you! The fat people you see haven't taken responsibility. The healthy and fit people you see, have. A lot of people try to excercise personal responsibility when it comes to dieting. If they were taking responsibility, it would work. It stops working when they stop taking responsibility. That's like arguing that they wouldn't be fat if they weren't fat. No, it's not. Because they wouldnt be fat in the first place had they taken responsibilty for their weight. They try a variety of diets and still fail because in the end, it's very difficult. It can be difficult, but that's what taking responsibility means. *You do the difficult things as well as the easy ones. OK. We have people who are personally responsible in all other aspects of their lives. They have good jobs. They pay their bills. They put their kids through school. The stay out of trouble with the law. So, clearly most people out there have a high degree of personal responsibility. But we're not talking about those things! We're talking about taking responsibilty for your own health, your own weight, etc. Their kids wouldn't be in good schools, they wouldn't have good jobs, they wouldn't pay their bills, etc., if they hadn't taken responsibilty for doing so! But yet, when they try to lose weight, they fail. Taking personal responsibilty means never giving up! You do more research, you try different things, etc. until you succeed! The obvious point is that the level of personal responsibility that you require them to have, is impossible for most people. I don't believe that. Sorry. It's like alcohol and drug addiction. Until someone hits bottom and finally decides that the pain and misery just isn't worth it, he remains addicted. Some people just don't make it. That's life. Throwing one's hands in the air and giving up is the personification of not taking responsibility. And tilting at windmills, What's foolish about realizing that you *must* keep trying, do more research, etc. to maintain one's health? To do otherwise is to admit defeat before you even start. How smart is that? Yes the problem for you is that Doug apparently doesn't buy your vast evil conspiracy theory either. *Companies are simply producing the products that people want. *It';s how the free market works. I figured that was common knowledge by now. You wouldn't know it from your constant bitching about drug companies. I bitch about drug companies because of the harm many of them do to our health. Can you think of a better reason to bitch? You, on the other hand, have a drug "cure" for every known "ailment"! In fact, you sound more like a Phizer rep than a low-carb fan. Exercise is beneficial for other reasons. You bet. But it doesn't really help anyone lose weight, and can even help to increase your weight, chance of injury, etc. Which of course is nonsense. * *That's your problem in general. You take something that has a bit of validity and then run it out to extremes, turn it into nonsense, and disregard the mountain of evidence that says you're wrong. There is a mountain of evidence out there, anecdotal and scientific, that suggests that exercising simply to lose weight is essentially a waste of time. It's no more a waste of time than expecting "personal responsibility" to cure obesity. Neither has proven successful in reversing the obesity epidemic. The only thing that will reverse the epidemic is TIME and KNOWLEDGE. Hoping for instant change is yet another exercise in futility. If you don't eat properly, you can exercise until the cows come how, and you won't lose much if any weight. BS. The Nazi concentration camps proved that. How exactly did concentration camps prove that??? They were starved, they lost almost all of their weight (virtual skeletons), and most died. What should they have been doing? Running marathons? If you're exercising properly, you're probably building muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat, so you're probably going to gain weight, not lose it. I see, so the 400lb fat guys on The Biggest Loser wound up at 450lbs. Which season was that? The season they didn't diet, you freakin' moron. Again, this is something that you can prove to yourself, and pretty easily. You brought up The Biggest Loser show. *What exactly is going on there? * They are losing weight at fantastic rates on a variety of diets and a lot of it is because they are excercising at levels few ordinary folks would ever reach. Exactly! No one is going to do that! The issue isn't that no one is going to do that. That's exactly the issue! You're really confused here. First you argue that personal responsibility works. It's 100% effective! They also have a huge support and motivation system that almost no one else excercising "personal responsibility" has. Exactly! And no one is going to have that. That's where personal responsibility comes in. Oh God, you just go in circles. It's not a circle. It's like being a little bit pregnant. Either you're personally responsible, or you're not. Maybe you should try excersice and see the effects. *I have and it works. Yes, it works, but it doesn't make you lose weight. You just agreed above that it did make people lose weight on Biggest Loser. They diet! They lose weight from dieting! First you argue that excercise doesn't do any good and can make you gain weight, now you're endorsing some excercise. Of course I endorse exercise, you moron! But not to lose weight! *We should exercise to become more fit, etc. The vast majority of us are not even fit enough to exercise, because we're so overweight that anything but walking short distances is dangerous to our joints, our heart, etc. Speak for yourself. If you're so fat you can't excercise, that's an issue of personal responsibility.... Exactly! I don't know of any health authority that says excercise has to be "very moderate" for the typical person trying to lose weight. * You have a source for that? Find me a "health authority" who suggests that a seriously obese man can do anything but moderate exercise! Seriously obese people can barely walk, much less enter a CrossFit competition. The experience we all see on The Biggest Loser says you're wrong. And clearly they have health authorities who have cleared the people participating. Now, who should we all believe, you or our lying eyes? How many people have personal trainers to help prevnt them from getting injured? Yes, and greed has also produced everything from all the drugs that have saved the lives of hundreds of millions to the iPhone. I don't know. Subtract all the people it harmed or killed from the people it helped, and it's probably a wash. Good. Next time you're seriously ill, call a hippie and try some meditation. I don't plan on getting seriously ill. But should **** happen, I will tell my doctor exactly how I will be treated. I will take total responsibilty for my treatment, my health, etc. Period. Feel free to take as many deadly, toxic drugs as you can! Shove them into your mouth with both hands! Wash them all down with some tasty AZT, too! See: Darwin and natural selection. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Food fight! Food fight!
On Aug 3, 1:39*pm, Dogman wrote:
But whether taking personal responsibilty is "practical," is a moot point. It's not a moot point because it's obviously not working for the vast majority of people and we have an obesity epidemic. It doesn't work Of course it does! The evidence is all around you! The fat people you see haven't taken responsibility. The healthy and fit people you see, have. Uh huh and the obese ones are growing in numbers each year. So, personal responsibility is not working for most people. That is the point Doug is making too. OK. *We have people who are personally responsible in all other aspects of their lives. *They have good jobs. They pay their bills. *They put their kids through school. The stay out of trouble with the law. *So, clearly most people out there have a high degree of personal responsibility. But we're not talking about those things! *We're talking about taking responsibilty for your own health, your own weight, etc. We are talking about it now because I brought it up. I gave those as obvious examples that show most people do have a considerable amount of personal responsibility. Hence, it's also obvious that when it comes to diet and food it's beyond the level of personal responsibility that works with keeping a job, paying bills, raising kids, etc. In other words the biological urges governing eating and weight are so strong that saying all that's needed is personal responsibility doesn't work for most people when it comes to diet. The obvious point is that the level of personal responsibility that you require them to have, is impossible for most people. I don't believe that. Sorry. That's OK, given all the nonsense that you believe, like HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that no virus can cause cancer, that is actually a comfort. It's like alcohol and drug addiction. Until someone hits bottom and finally decides that the pain and misery just isn't worth it, he remains addicted. Some people just don't make it. That's life. It's not just some people. It's a growing obesity epidemic that gets worse each year. As for the alcohol comparison, let's make the correct comparison. The level of personal responsibility you think people are capable of is like having an alcoholic patronize a bar every night, take two drinks, and not wind up binging and getting drunk. Doing that night after night with all his old friends. Because that is exactly what the obese person trying to diet has to do. Unlike an alcoholic, they can't just avoid food. They can't avoid eating food with their family and friends either. You think maybe, just maybe, that's why personal responsibility is failing? Throwing one's hands in the air and giving up is the personification of not taking responsibility. And tilting at windmills, What's foolish about realizing that you *must* keep trying, do more research, etc. to maintain one's health? It's foolish when you have a public health crisis and that approach clearly isnt' working. To do otherwise is to admit defeat before you even start. It's not like we're just starting. We have 3 decades of failure with obesity getting significantly worse each year. If you don't eat properly, you can exercise until the cows come how, and you won't lose much if any weight. BS. *The Nazi concentration camps proved that. How exactly did concentration camps prove that??? *They were starved, they lost almost all of their weight (virtual skeletons), and most died. What should they have been doing? Running marathons? They proved it by the fact that they were doing hard forced labor, eating little and losing weight. You claimed that excercise without eating right won't cause weight loss. They were not eating right, doing forced excercise and they lost a lot of weight. QED Yes, it works, but it doesn't make you lose weight. You just agreed above that it did make people lose weight on Biggest Loser. They diet! They lose weight from dieting! Oh, I see now it's back to they only lost weight due to dieting, not from excercise. But wait.... You claimed they should have put on weight from the excercise. Confused again. First you argue that excercise doesn't do any good and can make you gain weight, now you're endorsing some excercise. Of course I endorse exercise, you moron! But not to lose weight! We should exercise to become more fit, etc. The vast majority of us are not even fit enough to exercise, because we're so overweight that anything but walking short distances is dangerous to our joints, our heart, etc. Speak for yourself. *If you're so fat you can't excercise, that's an issue of personal responsibility.... Exactly! Well, I'm sorry to hear you say that you're so fat you can't excercise, but I'm not surprised either. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
the fight | Cubit | General Discussion | 33 | October 28th, 2007 02:23 PM |
"Food Fight" Book with Good Insights | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 2 | November 4th, 2004 06:03 PM |
Fighting Fat: Food fight erupts among diet gurus at conference | jmk | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 12:19 PM |
Low-Carb Could Spell Next Fast-Food Fight | Anonymous | General Discussion | 16 | October 16th, 2003 08:24 PM |
Low-Carb Could Spell Next Fast-Food Fight | Andi | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 16 | October 14th, 2003 08:01 PM |