Corporate Responsiblity for Obesity

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:57:11 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Head writes:

Hey, I'm eating just about equal to my metabolism, and cranking in maybe 5000
calories a week of exercise. Can _you_ match that?

At times I've done more than that _per day_.

I've never done that as just exercise. Don't know how any past work situations
have measured against that.

But it's not what you do for a month, it's what you do for a lifetime.

Yep.

Dave Head

On 11 Mar 2006 14:55:31 -0800, "TenKBabe" wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

Hey, I'm eating just about equal to my metabolism, and cranking in maybe 5000
calories a week of exercise. Can _you_ match that?

Hey Dave, if you are the muscle-bound freak you say you are, how's
about posting a photo.

Well, I've been thinking of taking such a photo for quite some time. Almost
got it done last Tuesday night - my personal trainer wanted to take pictures of
me, too, and several other of her students, but she was sick that night and
didn't show up.

I've probably only got muscles to justify maybe 200 lbs. 20 lbs or so _is_ fat
that I want to get rid of - either exercise down to 200 lbs of all-muscle, or
exercise and build enough muscle so I'm 220 and all muscle. Either way would
be fine with me.

Then we can put this BMI thing to rest.

I run from 70 to 90 miles per week, so yes I can match that and then
some.

I guess you can. Good for you. I'm doubting _you_ have much of a weight
problem... G

Dave Head


tkb.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:00:30 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Head writes:

The charts are broken, espcially after this latest release of BMI ...

Let me guess: A secret conspiracy of corporate fast-food peddlers has
adulterated the BMI tables!

I've heard opinions of these tables on the tube when health people speak of
them. The BMI tables are fairly universally discounted as being unrealistic,
espcially if someone is actually working at strength training.

Naw, it might be a little overweight.

It's more than a little overweight. Eat fewer peanuts in the car--in
fact, stop driving a car, and walk.

It would take me 4 hours to walk to work, and 4 hours to walk home. Nope,
ain't happenin'.


I think I can justify about 200 of it - my personal trainer says I could lose
20... which I'm going to do, and have a good time doing it.

Right. Real Soon Now.

I think it will take 12 to 18 months, if I lose it at all. It may turn out
that I build enough additional muscle such that I purge all my excess fat and
am still 220 lbs. OK with me if it goes that way, too.

I'm just not happy with having the country get fatter and fatter, simply
because some corporations want to make more money.

You just want to avoid responsibility for your own obesity. Nobody is
fooled, especially here.

3 big ones. Never again.

A diet is something you adopt for life, not something you do
temporarily.

Yep.

2

Eat just one, then.

Why would I do that? These are meals, not snacks. A 500 calorie meal is still
too small, let alone a 250 calorie meal.

Dave Head

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

I'm just not happy with having the country get fatter and fatter, simply
because some corporations want to make more money.

ALL corporations want to make more money. They do that by offering a
product that other people want to buy. The basic premise of capitalism
is that they are free to offer it and you are free to refuse it.

Yes, and I refuse out-sized bags of peanuts. I buy the Cokes and Pepsis since
I only buy diet soft drinks, so size doesn't matter, but would rather have 12
oz even then, as 20 oz is just too much.

People do not get fat because they can only buy 1400 calorie burgers.
They get fat because they EAT 1400 calorie burgers. This is not a fault
of the supply chain: you could preplan your meals so that you aren't
forced to buy convenience foods. You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's
no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas
in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food.

In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far
preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware, and
then having to deal with that.

You have your head so far up your ass about whose to blame for why
you're fat that I doubt you'll be able to get the weight off, much less
keep it off.

Oh, here we go with the insults already. Is it just usenet, or what?

DPH

Dally
244/168/155

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:11:51 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Head writes:

Don't need to - I'm doing quite nicely eating 2. as long as I stay at or under
my metabolism of about 2400 calories... everything is cool.

So how did you get to 220 lbs?

Oooh, now there's a story.

In 2004 I completed an intense diet and achieved 183 lbs. Not too bad. But, I
didn't sustain it - I mis-estimated my metabolism, and was eating at about a
2400 calorie a day rate when I was only burning at about an 1800 calorie a day
rate.

The diet had been intense, and a lot of the weight I lost was muscle. The
missing muscle accounted for the slowdown in metabolism.

I gained about 1 lb a month, when I finally figured out, at 189 lbs, that I was
unlikely to sustain that lower weight without walking around starving all the
time.

The local health club manager repeated to me the internet myth of each pound of
muscle burning 30 - 40 calories a day. I thought "cool" and set out to
increase my muscle mass.

This worked. I gained about 30 lbs of muscle over a year. Unfortunately, when
I was at the end of my diet, the one before starting the weight training, I
_still_ had a considerable amount of fat. That stayed with me. I picked up
some extra fat during that progression from 183 to 189, before I started the
wieght training.

Last summer I did a new exercise with my personal trainer - it was a sidestep
with elastic resistace, that just didn't agree with me at all. I had a
sensitivity to this in my left hip,which had been abused years earlier by
excessive bowling practice which I was _also_ using as a way to burn fat -
during the early 90s. I couldn't exercise to the level I wanted to because of
the pain. At the same time, I also injured my left shoulder. That kept me
from doing all the weight training I wanted to, again because of the pain. So,
I didn't get to the gym as much, and gained some more fat - not too much, but I
have about 20 lbs more than I should, according to my personal trainer. I
think that's about right. I should be 200 instead of 220.

But I like 'em... now _this_ _is_ about me - having a good time without feeling
hungry any time.

You don't need to snack to avoid feeling hungry.

That actually wasn't a snack. It was breakfast.

I could do that, but then I'd be hungry... that is sooo unpleasant.

It must be even more unpleasant than diabetes and congestive heart
failure, if you continue to avoid it.

Hey, mostly I don't overeat anyway.

If you overeat even occasionally, you'll still get fat.

Not if you kill it on the cross trainer...

2400 calories is a lotta food - I don't
usually go much over that. But lately I've been knocking down that 2400 to
about 1000 - 1200 with 1200 - 1400 calories of exercise. Fat _does_ disappear
when you're doing that.

It's hard to get 1400 kcal of exercise. That's nearly five hours of
walking.

That's the beauty of training machines. Cross-trainers where you can set the
resistance allows for 1000 calories in an hour. The other 400 calories comes
from 1 1/2 hrs of weight training.

There are people that can eat the statue of liberty done in chocolate and not
get fat... my brother was one of 'em.

There isn't anyone who can overeat and remain thin. People who are
not fat are people who do not overeat.

Not necessarily true. There are people that _desire_ to gain weight, eat like
a lumberjack... and still don't gain weight.

There are also people that have extremely active jobs - lumberjacks,
construction workers (some of 'em that aren't sitting down operating cranes).

The vast majority of Americans do not have such jobs, and yet many are
still thin.

Yep. See above.

Some of 'em are just naturally on the side of not wanting much food,
and not getting hungry with the frequency and intensity of other.

Some are not addicted to overeating, that's true. But addiction is
psychological and can be overcome.

Funny - every time I've attempted to _under_ eat, as in dieting, I was always
extremely hungry. I've never been able to overcome that. It ain't
psychological, either - its physiological.

Dave Head

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:53:26 +0900, Doug Lerner wrote:


I agree that I would prefer companies to sell true one-serving, smaller
package size of things. When I visited the U.S. I was dismayed by the overly
large packages of snacks containing too many calories.

So what I did was pass up on them.

Yep - that's the way I handle 'em.

I can understand the frustration, but I don't see as any sort of solution
government mandated single-serving food packages. That seems like too much
government intervention in the marketplace. It seems doomed to failure,
confusion, high prices, etc.

Agree. I hate legisative solutions. Still, there needs to be some kind of
real incentive to have smaller packages of things available.


It would be better to just convince companies that there was *demand* for
such things. If there was demand they would make the stuff, like Nabisco
does with those "100 calorie snack packs" of things like wheat things and so
on.

Nabisco is going to get some of my money, for sure. I'm going to look for
these 100 calorie packs.

Dave Head

doug


On 3/11/06 10:32 PM, in article ,
"Dave Head" wrote:

Casino gambling is wildly popular among a significant percetage of the
population - IOW, there is "demand" for it - but many think it a bad thing and
therefore there are laws against it most places.

So, just because there is a demand for something, does that mean its a good
thing? Are those that offer something that is not necessarily in the best
interested of the customer to be cosidered blameless while America largely
loses a battle with a deadly health menace?

Its like cars - the law doesn't say you can't build a big one, it just says
you
have to build some small ones so your Corprate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) is
28 mpg (or whatever it is now.) Why? Because its good for the nation.

Just out of "doing the right thing", the food sellers _ought_ to offer
_reasonable_ sized packages of their products. If Joe Jellybelly wants to buy
a 6 oz, 960 calorie bag of peanuts, that's fine, but I want to buy a 1 3/4 oz
bag or 2.5 oz bag, and believe it is a bad thing for the food sellers not to
offer it just to sell more product without regard to the health impact on the
population.

Dave Head wrote:

People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the
shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20
oz bottles.

This really highlights your brain damage.

1. Drink water. OR
2. Buy 2 liter bottles of soda in the grocery store and refrigerate it
and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR
3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR
4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and
refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car.

You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your
own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of
****tards without survival skills - big whoop. You are CHOOSING to be a
non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too.

Dally

Dave Head wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote:

You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's
no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas
in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food.

In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far
preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware, and
then having to deal with that.

I disagree on every level. I plan, purchase and pack healthier meals.
My meals have better macronutrient ratios, nutrients, less packaging,
cost less money and are better for me.

You choose to buy crappy food from bad food purveyors and then blame the
corporations.

Look in a mirror, dude.

Dally

In article , Dally
wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 19:19:42 -0500, Dally wrote:

You CHOOSE convenience foods. There's
no reason in the world why you can't cook up a mess of black-eyed peas
in the crockpot during the day instead of eating fast food.

In the daytime I'm at work most of the week. Eating fast food is far
preferable than messing around dirtying up pots and dishes and silverware,
and
then having to deal with that.

I disagree on every level. I plan, purchase and pack healthier meals.
My meals have better macronutrient ratios, nutrients, less packaging,
cost less money and are better for me.

You choose to buy crappy food from bad food purveyors and then blame the
corporations.

Look in a mirror, dude.

Dally


The jerk is obviously a troll. Don't watse your time. What does he
expect us to do? He should take his case the Congress or the food
processors.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 11:29:50 -0500, Dally wrote:

Dave Head wrote:

People know they want a Coke or a Pepsi. They buy what they can find on the
shelf. The corporations are making sure they only find (the more expensive) 20
oz bottles.

This really highlights your brain damage.

1. Drink water. OR
2. Buy 2 liter bottles of soda in the grocery store and refrigerate it
and use a cup to serve 8 ounces when you want it. OR
3. Buy a 20 ounce soda and throw away half. OR
4. Buy the 8 ounce junior cans they have in grocery stores and
refrigerate them at home and pack them in ice chests for your car.

You only problem - your ENTIRE problem - is being unable to meet your
own needs with a little forethought. Corporations make money off of
****tards without survival skills - big whoop. You are CHOOSING to be a
non-planning idiot consumer. Your choice. I'd make money off of you, too.

Dally

No, you haven't been listening.

1) I buy diet - I can have as much as I want.

2) Its about the fat bomb that's been unleashed upon this nation in the pursuit
of the almighty buck. The general population is getting much fatter than it
ever has been. This sort of marketing is one of the reasons. This nonsense
should be opposed.

Dave Head