homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Why not just have a siren go off? "FAT-so, FAT-so, FAT-so!" (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  11  12  13 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Why not just have a siren go off? "FAT-so, FAT-so, FAT-so!"
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
'Ah yes, the healthiest period in which, amongst other things, 4,000 died in the 1952 smog. Had they better nourished a substantial number would have survived. But they would probably have got TB, the prevalence of which concealed the extent of lung cancer'.

Oh yeah- those 4,000 people would not have died if they'd been obese!

People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

Obesity kills. Suck it and see.

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
and for the most part we would just shut up about it and let our bodies find their natural weight.

This is also idiotic. Your body doesn't have a natural weight. Your body is designed to crave lots of bad food because historically you needed those to survive. You needed to fatten up for the times of famine. As we are in perpetual feast most people will become obese unless they fight their bodies "natural" desires.

I can probably eat 2-3x the amount of food that is needed to make me feel full, because I have been over eating for so long that my brain equates "stuffed" with "full" (I can easily eat to the point of it being physically impossible for me to eat more food. And not feel ill). And feeling stuffed makes my brain very happy.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The trick is not for the body to find its natural weight; but for the hand with the Mars Bar in it to find its way to the mouth a little less often [Paranoid] .
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What changed is that people started going on strict diets and staying on them for long periods of time. Doing this, particularly if you are still in your teens, causes permanent changes to your fat cells, metabolism and the appetite centers in the brain.

Put a 115 pound 15 year old girl on a diet and she will probably have a weight problem for life. She will rebound with a craving for high fat foods and will probably gain up to about 130. She'll diet again, and so on. This has been shown to be true in lots of studies.

I have never heard of studies showing that. I have seen ones showing that yo-yo dieting leads to long term weight gain. What you are describing could just mean that people who get obese have problems sticking to diets.

I also I dare you to provide evidence that significant numbers of young people have begun dieting at a young age. And that those numbers match the increase in obesity. I know that none of the obese kids at my school were on a diet, and there where more then would have been there in the 1950's (my school has class photos going back to the 30's).

Frankly I think you are talking out of your ass.

People naturally have a craving for high fat/sugar/salt foods. The difference was that in the 1950's they still weren't as accessible as they are today. There has been a massive increase since then in fat/sugar/salt content and various artificial sweeteners.

And even then, no one in this fucking thread has recommended fad dieting. Crash dieting is a bad idea because it is hard to stick to.

Most of my information comes from books I've returned to the library and copy right laws would keep me from printing most of it here, anyway. I didn't make it up.


one book
also Glen Gaesser's Big Fat Lies
and www.obesitymyths.com.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
When you lower your caloric intake over a long period of time, YOUR BODY ADJUSTS and starts burning less. To maintain the same weight you have to lower it more. If you're unlucky enough to have the wrong kind of metabolism, eventually you're starving yourself and still gaining weight. Our bodies are designed to gain weight when calories are available. Trying to short-circuit this leads to problems.

That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down. Our bodies are not just designed to gain weight when calories are available; they're also designed to burn fat on demand. It's not rocket science. Also, it helps if you gradually lower your caloric intake rather than dropping it overnight to what it will eventually be when you reach a healthy weight.

Yeah, it's hard. But it's not impossible.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
'Ah yes, the healthiest period in which, amongst other things, 4,000 died in the 1952 smog. Had they better nourished a substantial number would have survived. But they would probably have got TB, the prevalence of which concealed the extent of lung cancer'.

Oh yeah- those 4,000 people would not have died if they'd been obese!

People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

Obesity kills. Suck it and see.

I never said that the 1950's were a healthy period, just that the average weight was lower and we weren't dieting or exercising as much as we are now, in the US.

YOU are the one screaming about how horribly unhealthy we are now and how we have to change or all the money will run out !

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amazing Grace

High Church Protestant
# 95

 - Posted      Profile for Amazing Grace   Email Amazing Grace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
You know why the put weight back on? Because they stop dieting.

No one can live on "a diet" if by "a diet" you mean so low in calories that you are intended to lose weight. You just can't live like that. So people diet and get down to a certain size and then ease up a bit. And then a bit more. And then a lot. And start to put weight on. And on. And on. Because they only diet to lose weight and then go back to how it was before.

It's been said before, but it's worth saying again. The only way to get and stay thin, if you are not, is to make permanent changes to what you eat and what you do.

Actually I attribute my long term successful weight loss to giving up dieting. ("Dieting" meaning weirdo starvation plans.) I resolved to eat what I wanted, and enjoy what I ate. But otherwise, yeah, what she said.

When I need to lose a few (to, say, fit into a dress for a special event), there are no forbidden foods, but I have to be seriously jonesing for, say, French fries before I'll eat them. Otherwise it's avoidance of sugar, alcohol, and deep-fried things and an emphasis on legumes and fresh veg. (Knowing I can eat X item if my body truly desires it makes the hunger for X become less frequent, after an initial period of pigging out on X.)

I tend not to stress-eat, which is a big help. I've noted my weight go up the few times I did. (I tend to stress-cook and it's soup as often as baked goods. The soup I eat, the baked goods I give away.) I'm also tall and have a healthy metabolism, which makes it a lot easier for me to lose once I'm eating right.

Charlotte

--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play

Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Yorick

Infinite Jester
# 12169

 - Posted      Profile for Yorick   Email Yorick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Twilight, I was replying to Sioni Sais (post timed at 10.35). Just can't get this chuffing quote formatting to work on this board...

--------------------
این نیز بگذرد

Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It is true that sweets and really rich foods are far more available now than they were 50 years ago. Given that people realize that the human body has a natural predilection for sugar, it is arguable that it's a lot easier to become obese nowadays by just following your body's natural inclinations than it would have been 50 years ago.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
DW - go up to styx and the UBB practice thread. try it a few times until you're comfy with it. it's easy once you figure it out.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Speaking from the fat capitol of the USA (Houston, Texas), Here there is no tax on groceries. There is tax on chips, soda, all restraunt food (including fast food), and oh yes candy bars. Yet we in the Houston area are considered to be the fattest* city in the US. I guess just taxing bad food and not taxing good food is not the answer. I suspect education is probably the best way to go.

Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

*I have no idea how the fattest city in the US is determined but it was and we are.

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
bummer designation, Rugasaw.

if' it's any consolation, we're the "most liberal voting district in Alaska"

which just means we're slightly to the left of Buchannan. it's all relative.

back to the point - I wonder how much the advent of of home computer game consoles are also to blame. I say this because the chubby kids in my kids' schools tend to be the ones who's parents buy them lots of PS-whatevers, and have satTV, and buy them snowmachines instead of skis, and basically purchasepurchasepurchase anything the kids want.

I dont know how much it comes into play, except IME it seems to have a direct correlation to waist size in kids.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

No it isn't. It is both disputable and disputed.

quote:

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

No it isn't. It depends on circumstances. If you live in an environment where food is freely availaible, and people rarely allow their homes or offices to fall below 25 degrees, then being thin is better.

If you have frequent serious food shortages and occasional actual famines, and long cold winters, then fat is better.


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I never said that the 1950's were a healthy period, just that the average weight was lower and we weren't dieting or exercising as much as we are now,

There are loads of possibile explanations for that. The most likely is that we really are eating more. And we really are on average doing less physical work.

But there are lots of other posibilities, not at all mutually exclusive.

Social changes take time to work through the population. Our habits and lifestyles are never perfectly adapted to the life we live now, buit to a sort of compromise between the way we live now, the way we were brought up, the way our parents lived, and the way they were brought up.

Genetic characters express as different traits in different circumstances.

Some biological changes take time to work through. Your adult height, for example, is influenced by your genes of course, but also by your nutrition. For example it is quite likely that a high-protein diet inthe months leading up to the pubertal and mid-childhood growth spurts will tend to produce taller people. Famously Japanese people are short - but 3rd generation Japanese living in the Americas are not. Your final height is also influenced by your body size art birth, and by youir experience of nutrition in the womb. And that is influenced by your mother's body size and nutritional status. So changes in height can take two or three generations to work through the population.

The same is almost certainly true of changes in response to nutrition. If our bodies now "expect" to be well-fed we might have altered our metabolisms in such a way as to take advantage of (i.e. store) the excess food. That alteration might well have taken two or three our four generations to work through.

[ 20. December 2006, 17:07: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

No it isn't. It is both disputable and disputed.

My dad told me that when he was a kid, the only fruits/vegetables they ate outside the growing season were things that they could store in the cellar (e.g. carrots, potatoes, apples), or home canning. Believe it or not, this was in California. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Speaking from the fat capitol of the USA (Houston, Texas), Here there is no tax on groceries. There is tax on chips, soda, all restraunt food (including fast food), and oh yes candy bars. Yet we in the Houston area are considered to be the fattest* city in the US. I guess just taxing bad food and not taxing good food is not the answer. I suspect education is probably the best way to go.

It's similar here in California -- groceries are not taxed (including junk food), and restaurant food is. With local taxes, it comes to an additional 8.25%, but that's not enough to change people's behavior. The double cheeseburger at McDonald's is $1 before tax, $1.08 with tax. Big deal. I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
back to the point - I wonder how much the advent of of home computer game consoles are also to blame. I say this because the chubby kids in my kids' schools tend to be the ones who's parents buy them lots of PS-whatevers, and have satTV, and buy them snowmachines instead of skis, and basically purchasepurchasepurchase anything the kids want.

I would say the problem began with extensive childrens TV programming. Computer games just add to an existing problem. The problem is suburbs that don't have anywhere for kids to play even if they wanted to, and parents who are so afraid they would prefer their children stayed home.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.

Taxes are to easy an answer for politicians in my opinion. Especially as if they generate a significant income, their is actually a disincentive for the government to significantly reduce consumption of the product which is taxed.

I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

A much simpler way to reduce consumption of "bad" fats and sweeteners, is to just regulate the food industry.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

Taxes do reduce tobacco use: see reports of actual studies. So much better than uninformed opinion, don't you think?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.

Taxes are to easy an answer for politicians in my opinion. Especially as if they generate a significant income, their is actually a disincentive for the government to significantly reduce consumption of the product which is taxed.

I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

A much simpler way to reduce consumption of "bad" fats and sweeteners, is to just regulate the food industry.

I don't think it's either/or. Taxes do work to adjust behaviour to some extent, you also need appropriate regulations in the industry as well as education (which will probably be needed to gather support for the taxes and regulations).

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
sorry, tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
(and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

I highly doubt it. in my state, I believe this is the case in actual renewables - i.e. not petroleum. but otherwise - no way. remember, we dont have huge factory farms, etc. Marijuana is one of our few plant crops at all.

However, that being said, these numbers are always so hyper inflated for the sake of argument, simply because the reason marijuana (or fill in your illegal controlled substance of choice) is such a big income producer is because it is illegal. In a story I did a few years ago, a drug cop said when we made pot illegal up here the price went up tenfold, despite the fact that it had always been illegal to sell it. therefore, if we were to make it legal and tax it, we wouldn't be taxing, say, ten percent of that 100 dollar gram they're so excited about, ("10 bucks a gram into the coffers!") the legality would make it a ten dollar gram bag, and the actual tax income would go down to a buck a bag.


besides, when it was legal, it was much less interesting for us kids to want to use it. less demand for the supply.

end tangent, back to your regularly scheduled whining and grousing.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Handy data Ruth but to me it shows that taxation doesn't work! See this on the BBC re tax in the USA compared to that in Britain and Europe.

Just as one example "The US tax on cigarettes is actually quite low. In many countries in Western Europe up to 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes goes to the taxman."

The tax is pretty high in the UK. You can easily pay £5 for a pack of 20 (about $9). People still smoke and those who do are the hard core who will, IMO, always smoke. Even if it is made illegal.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
No one ever claimed taxation would eliminate tobacco use entirely, Sioni Sais. Some people will pay the price, however high it is. But the fact remains that taxing tobacco does reduce the number of people using it. Young people are particularly sensitive to price, and that's extremely important, and people who don't start smoking when they're young are not likely to take it up later in life.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alfred E. Neuman

What? Me worry?
# 6855

 - Posted      Profile for Alfred E. Neuman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... People still smoke and those who do are the hard core who will, IMO, always smoke. Even if it is made illegal.

Pssst! Hey, man. C'mere... I gotta dime bag of Philip Morris for ya. Good shit.

--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--

Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
When you lower your caloric intake over a long period of time, YOUR BODY ADJUSTS and starts burning less. To maintain the same weight you have to lower it more. If you're unlucky enough to have the wrong kind of metabolism, eventually you're starving yourself and still gaining weight. Our bodies are designed to gain weight when calories are available. Trying to short-circuit this leads to problems.

That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down.
Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

This is a perfect example of why everyone on this thread is right -- to some degree.
I read an excellent book by science writer Gina Kolata called Ultimate Fitness. In it she explains why we all go around believing things like "exercise speeds up metabolism" and "fat makes us fat." It's all true to some slight degree but the publishers of magazines and diet books have been taking these bits of health "facts" and stretching them out of porportion so that they'll have a new theory for the latest article or book.

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

Taxes do reduce tobacco use: see reports of actual studies. So much better than uninformed opinion, don't you think?
I never said taxes could not be part of the solution. And I don't think the study actually says taxation is the only thing* that caused the decrease in tobacco use. The handy website you linked to has this quote "A recent survey by the New York State Department of Health found a 12% decline in smoking in the state from 2003 to 2004. The national average, by comparison, fell just 4% from 2002 to 2003, the last year for which data has been compiled. Health advocates attribute New York's success rate in reducing tobacco use to the implementation of three key policies - a statewide smokefree workplace law, high tax on cigarettes ($1.50/pack), and an education program which includes a cessation program for adults and a prevention program targeting children. " From this I would say a heavy education and anti fat eating campaign along with heavy taxation along with outlawing things like candy in the schools and workplaces (is this possible) would get results. If you noticed I said alot of hard work was needed. If you think you can just tax the fat out of the people you are wrong. If you place a high priority on getting rid of high fat foods. And you make it harder to eat fatty foods. Then Ibelieve you will get less people eating fatty foods. I don't think these strategies will work on getting people to exercise. So now you only need to find a way to force people to exercise and you will have found your solution.

*perhaps those who interpret the data do and perhaps not. By the way this study is on cigars not tobbaco as a whole(I am a stat pedant).

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left at the Altar

Ship's Siren
# 5077

 - Posted      Profile for Left at the Altar         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No one ever claimed taxation would eliminate tobacco use entirely, Sioni Sais. Some people will pay the price, however high it is. But the fact remains that taxing tobacco does reduce the number of people using it. Young people are particularly sensitive to price, and that's extremely important, and people who don't start smoking when they're young are not likely to take it up later in life.

I suspect that those who don't take it up, don't take it up because (a) Mum and Dad don't smoke and (b) they've been educated about the risks from a young age.

Children with parents who smoke seem to take it up and early. I find that so depressing. Mind you, they'd probably be thorougly addicted to the stuff by the age of 5 from the smoke in the air at home.

Taxing does nothing here (at least not that I've observed). Cigarettes cost a fortune, but people with not much money still buy them. It just means that there's less money for other things.

Similarly with food. If you tax junk food, I doubt people who live on the stuff will stop living on the stuff. They'll just have less money to buy other stuff.

--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.

Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scot

Deck hand
# 2095

 - Posted      Profile for Scot   Email Scot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

This is a perfect example of why everyone on this thread is right -- to some degree.
I read an excellent book by science writer Gina Kolata called Ultimate Fitness. In it she explains why we all go around believing things like "exercise speeds up metabolism" and "fat makes us fat." It's all true to some slight degree but the publishers of magazines and diet books have been taking these bits of health "facts" and stretching them out of porportion so that they'll have a new theory for the latest article or book.

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.

That's not a study, Twilight. It's a website that presents a bunch of unsupported assertions. That doesn't mean that the assertions are wrong, but it does mean that it's not a conversation stopper.

I'd really like to know the source of the factoid about "a high intensity 6 month lifting program" producing a 4-pound gain in muscle mass. Or is it 4 kilograms? That page says both. For 6 months and high intensity, I suspect it means kilograms.

I also wonder what effect the 4 kilograms (pounds?) of muscle would have on the actual, rather than resting, metabolism of an active person. In its broken grammar and confused units, I think the page says that the 28 Kg of skeletal muscle on the hypothetical 70 Kg man burns 22 percent of his calories. Assuming a typical intake of 2500 calories, his muscle is burning 550 calories per day, or just under 20 calories per kilogram. A 4 Kg muscle gain should account for roughly another 80 calories per day, or 3 percent of the guy's intake. If the exercise program is extended at a lower intensity, it could easily account for another few percent of the caloric intake.

What the numbers on that webpage tell me is that adding a few kilograms of muscle and a moderate exercise program has to potential to increase my overall metabolism by 5 percent or more. No, that's not going to have you looking like a fitness model by the end of next week. If, however, a normal, healthy person combines a 5 percent metabolic increase with a modest intake reduction, they are very likely to see some worthwhile and noticable improvements in the condition of their body.

[ 20. December 2006, 19:48: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
According to an article in the New Scientist (4/11/2006) obesity researchers are suggesting the following reasons for increase in weight over and above the obvious ones of consumption and exercise:
  • Not enough sleep - if you plot the decline in average number of hours slept against increase in obesity you get matching curves. It's thought to be caused by sleep loss altering "the ability of leptin and ghrelin to accurately signal caloric need"
  • Climate control our metabolic rates adapt to the temperature by sweating or shivering - central heating removes this energy burner
  • Less smoking big link to increase in obesity and reduction in smoking in US
  • Prenatal effects or what happens in the womb/genetic effects
  • "Fat = Fecund" Heavier people have more children
  • age adults between 40 to 79 are three times as likely to be obese as younger people
  • More drugs antihistamines, neuroleptics, anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, HIV and diabetes medications, beta blockers and the contraceptive pill all are linked to weight gain.
  • Pollution some of the chemical pollutants are known to lead to weight gain
  • Mature mums having an older mother is a risk for obesity
  • Like marrying like so larger people marry larger people, linked to genetic propensity to be overweight, a tendency to produce more children and the prenatal effects ...
Skimped through at speed, but as people have been saying - it's more complicated than just diet and exercise.

[eta = speeling = caloric is better than coloric]

[ 20. December 2006, 20:14: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

For the last time, it isn't working parents that make kids fat. But cooking at home rather than carry out and eating all at the table together are associated with better fitness. My kids learn to cook as I cook, by my side, at breakfast and dinner. They eat lunch at school, which they pack themselves or with some help.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Just as a note on cooking - I'm a great cook. My mother and father are great cooks. My father has tripled his weight* over the 28 years they've been together. Nova has gained 10 kgs in the 5 years we've been together. Both Maman and I cook more than most people I know, so it isn't just cooking. It's what we cook, how we cook, what we do, what we can do and how we work. It is also some genetic crap going on, at least with Da.

These things are not as clear cut as people like dogwonderer would think. I'm fat. I started getting fat when I stopped racing around at the age of 12 because I injured my knee. This injury lasted for 5 years before the doctors took a closer look beyond "you're fat". Turns out the injury catalysed a genetic tumour. Because it had five years to grow, I now have no cartiledge in my left knee, a mass of scar tissue the size of my hand and only three-quarters of my knee cap left. Which causes constant pain and means if I over-exercise I cripple myself. The obsession with fat as the major cause for everything means stuff like that gets missed. My sister got told to lose weight after she went to the doctors with a chest infection - her BMI is well within range and she's remarkably healthy. She just happens to have large breasts (like me) and unless you're wearing something fitting, you tend to look fatter than you actually are. Fat does not equal unfit or unhealthy. Just as thin does not equal fit or healthy. The societal obsession with visual judgement is horrific.

*As a note for medical costs - Da is seriously obese. But he works hard at physical labour every day (arms and legs like tree trunks) and has been to the doctor three times in the past decade. Once after boiling water caused third degree burns and he worked for a week out at sea with it until it got infected, once for a kidney infection and recently his blood pressure went through the roof. Since mum enforced a policy of office hours and at least one day a week at home without the phone that's cleared up.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down.

Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

...

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.

Good grief, learn to read. I said exercise would keep your metabolism from slowing down while you cut your calorie intake, not speed it up.

quote:
If you think you can just tax the fat out of the people you are wrong.
I didn't make this claim. You too should learn to read.

[ 21. December 2006, 00:04: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Interesting article on yet another thing discovered to have a connection to obesity (though they aren't saying which causes which, the bacteria or the obesity)

Article about gut bacteria and obesity

Apparently the obese have more of a certain type of gut bacteria and less of another type than the non-obese.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
The societal obsession with visual judgement is horrific.

just thought this bore repeating.

while obesity is a real societal issue, crap self-esteem due to what ananke references above is, IMO, causing as much harm.

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

For the last time, it isn't working parents that make kids fat. But cooking at home rather than carry out and eating all at the table together are associated with better fitness. My kids learn to cook as I cook, by my side, at breakfast and dinner. They eat lunch at school, which they pack themselves or with some help.
Not for the last time. To make myself clearer how do you have sit down meals when you do not see your kids because you work evenings and nights. Oh yes quit your job and go on welfare. I was just attempting to point out that fatness is of very low concern to alot of poor people. They have bigger things to worry about.

RuthW I appologize for thinking that you wanted to tax the fat out of people. I only thought that because you indicated that raising taxes on fatty foods would cause less people to buy fatty foods. Or maybe the tobacco aside was just an aside and not related to the op.

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
All this talk of fifties food got to me. For dinner I had two sandwiches of white bread and a ham-salad-type spread made out of ground bologna. I've been looking at this stuff in the supermarket deli for months, wondering if it was just like the kind my mother used to make. She used to make it with one of those grinders clamped to the side of the table.
318 calories for 1/4 cup. Boy was it good.

Now I feel sick.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
What you said, rugasaw, is that I'm wrong if I think we can just tax the fat out of people -- and I didn't say that. Hence my remark about your needing to learn to read. I do think taxing junk food might make a difference if the taxes were high enough, but I don't for a minute think that's a solution all by itself.

But my bad for trying to post something beyond sloganeering in Hell.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
My bad for thinking in sloganeering terms in hell(or anywhere else). I do realize that you think it will take more than taxation and I agree with you. I also have no problems with the use of taxation to change behavior. I know that something you said ealier about hardwork is absolutely true not only on an individual scale but also on a national scale.

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to an article in the New Scientist

I read that, it was great fun

NB the article did say that therwe was very little evidence to support most of those ideas.

quote:

[*]"Fat = Fecund" Heavier people have more children
[...][*]Like marrying like so larger people marry larger people, linked to genetic propensity to be overweight, a tendency to produce more children and the prenatal effects ...
[/list]

In other words being fat is a selective advantage. Think of it as evolution in action.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651

 - Posted      Profile for Lynn MagdalenCollege   Author's homepage   Email Lynn MagdalenCollege   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
exactly. I am designed to survive the next Ice Age... [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical

Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I finally decided that the reason I don't find men with no body fat very attractive is I have an atavistic conviction that they won't make it through the winter. If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be dragging his emaciated corpse out of my cave.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315

 - Posted      Profile for rugasaw   Email rugasaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
From all the males with more than zero body fat a great big thank you.

--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown

Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well of course it's a big thank you! (Sorry, couldn't resist. [Big Grin] )
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't really care if a guy is fat/skinny as long as he is tall and the most important thing...he really likes to eat. If he enjoys seeing me stuff my face too and has no hang ups about my chowing down, even better. We will be love birds.

See...fat means = more to love
skinny means = more to push food on him

a win win situation.

tallness is just my own personal hang up.

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Corpus cani

Ship's Anachronism
# 1663

 - Posted      Profile for Corpus cani     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm tall! [Biased]

Cc

--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.

Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Ori***ally posted by RuthW:
I finally decided that the reason I don't find men with no body fat very attractive is I have an atavistic conviction that they won't make it through the winter. If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be drag***g his emaciated corpse out of my cave.

What the Hell were you planning on doing to him in that cave? [Eek!] [Help] [Ultra confused]

[ 22. December 2006, 17:58: Message edited by: Laura ]

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
comet

Snowball in Hell
# 10353

 - Posted      Profile for comet   Author's homepage   Email comet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Ori***ally posted by RuthW:
If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be drag***g his emaciated corpse out of my cave.

What the Hell were you planning on doing to him in that cave? [Eek!] [Help] [Ultra confused]
apparently not feeding him, at least!

"These men. so flimsy. I go through gobs of them every year..."

--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin

Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
I'm tall! [Biased]

Cc

hello there big boy...

I mean Father. Here are some lemon magic cookie bars. Eat them at once and forget LATA & the dirt patch out in the shed...

[edited: Magic cookie bars are a real recipe with condense milk. I need to learn the make the lemon bars though in the condensd milk cookbook my brother has. ]

[ 27. December 2006, 08:45: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Fat, schmat. We're all going to die, and there are worse things to die of than a really good steak.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431

 - Posted      Profile for AdamPater   Email AdamPater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yep, diabetes and heart disease are a hoot. You don't even have to go all at once: just take it one extremity at a time.

So avoidable.

--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.

Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  11  12  13 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools