^^ We are obsessed with thin, but we are also a nation of perpetual adolescents, so we seek to excuse our bad behaviors, blame it on something else, and rebel against society by choosing destructive paths for the sake of being the opposite of what society wants from us.

7/25/2008 11:22:10 PM

Quote :

"Dey tukk errrr fatty McBurgers!"

HURL

Except they didn't. What does this "ban" do about other restaurants that serve less-than-healthy food? What does it do about unhealthy food purchases by consumers at grocery stores, convenience stores, vending machines, and so on? The answer: absolutely nothing.

The moratorium at issue is just one more unfortunate example of government at its worst: initiating symbolic yet heavy-handed measures that will do nothing to solve the problem, but that always manage to reduce freedom in the process.

BTW, your worthless post is the typical idiocy we've come to expect from you.

Quote :

"haha, if only we had an obsession with thinness."

actualmoron

You, the fascists, in fact do have such an obsession--we've witnessed it here. Not only are you obsessed with the size of other individuals' bodies, you intend to forcibly control the type of foods that they consume.



I frown upon your diet. *Smug*

Quote :

"I bet a fat person wrote that book"

Boone- Tard

Wrong again, asshole.



Brian Pronger

Quote :

"Brian Pronger is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Physical Education and Health, at the University of Toronto. Brian is also on the Steering Committee of the Sexual Diversity Studies Programme, University College, University of Toronto. Besides authoring several books, Brian was a contributing editor for http://www.glbtq.com: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture."

http://www.ryerson.ca/library/subjects/sexdiv/pronger.html?SEARCH=Pronger,,Brian,1953

Have any of you run a serious reality check on yourselves lately? Obviously not.

7/26/2008 6:16:42 AM

Fat during childhood, then.

Exercises 2 hours a day to compensate for childhood trauma.

7/26/2008 9:36:42 AM

Personal responsiblity would fix all of this. People want to blame McDonalds or some other fast food place for their obesity. They post the health facts, you have to edumicate yosef.

7/29/2008 2:01:47 PM

The lame call for personal responsiblity. It has become the new logical fallacy of the right.

7/29/2008 2:13:55 PM

Oh please. Let's come out with it, already - the clarion call of the left: "You're too stupid to run your own lives!"

7/29/2008 2:22:41 PM

If youre dumb enough or lack the self control and you gorge on big macs, fries, etc. thats your problem. Fast food resurants are not the ones to blame. I can go in a chili's, a pizza place, or even to the grocery store to make my own fatty burgers. They have food thats just as bad. Don't pick on fast food resturants just because they're better at peddling grease, especially if they have healthy alternatives. If you don't want to eat there, dont. No one's ever held me at gun point to order a whopper.

It's the same thing if youre a drunk. Alcohol is there and just as available as unhealthy food. If you want to guzzle booze and destroy your liver, thats your fault.

Quote :

"The lame call for personal responsiblity. It has become the new logical fallacy of the right."

Did you rip that quote from someone or are you that much of a douche on your own?

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/29/2008 2:45:53 PM

How long does it have to be before people wake and realize that claiming personal responsibility doesn't make it happen.

Innercity plight - personal responsiblity
poor schools - personal responsiblity
obesity - personal responsiblity
healthcare - personal responsibility

as long as we continue to burry our heads in the personal responsiblity sand we'll be continually facing these problems into the future

^^It isn't about being "too stupid," it's about providing the proper motivation.

7/29/2008 2:53:35 PM

I will definitely agree with you on the poverty and poor schooling aspect to a point. Those are conditions outside of your control in many cases. While someone may not be able to help the fact that they were born into poverty or that they somehow became poor, they can decide if they are going to eat fast food. Hypothetically, if we took away fast food resturants, people with bad eating habits will find continue to have them elsewhere.

I think our disagreement is about how much the government should be involved in our lives. I have sympathy for those in poverty and those with health problems out of their control. I do not belive it is the place of government to restrict my dietary options in an attempt to curb obesity. I think a proactive approach to healthcare concerns is admirable, but it should be in the form of education and other possible incentives.

7/29/2008 3:18:32 PM

Quote :

"Hypothetically, if we took away fast food resturants, people with bad eating habits will find continue to have them elsewhere."

Please produce a study to back this viewpoint.

7/29/2008 3:21:03 PM

Quote :

"the proper motivation"

Perhaps the proper motivation includes allowing people to face the consequences of their actions.

I don't consider poverty and obesity in the same ballpark with regards to upward mobility, though.

7/29/2008 3:21:22 PM

all just examples of cases in which the argument is for more personal responsiblity when personal responsiblity hasn't shown itself to work.

7/29/2008 3:23:54 PM

No but for real people are stupid

7/29/2008 3:27:20 PM

I'm 100% for personal responsibility in cases like this where that's all it takes. Allow the obese to face the consequences of being a fatass and leave the rest of us alone.

Unfortunately, poverty isn't just about personal responsibility. There are other factors at work.

7/29/2008 3:27:22 PM

The problem with obessity is that it doesn't just affect the obese. It costs you and I more money.

7/29/2008 3:36:33 PM

especially if we had socialized healthcare

7/29/2008 3:49:18 PM

healthcare is already soclialized in this country. HMOs are nothing more than socialized healthcare.

7/29/2008 3:50:50 PM

Perhaps health issues caused by obesity should be paid out of pocket instead of covered by HMOs. I mean, obviously there is a point where that becomes inhumane, but there is no reason the rest of us should bear the consequences of the obese when it simply is just a matter personal responsibility.

Even if you think steps should be taken to protect the obese from themselves, this solution is sure to do nothing to solve obesity. Why does Chili's get a free pass and McD's can't open any new stores? I bet the average meal from Chili's or <insert horrible chain restaurant here> has twice the fat and calories as a meal from any fast food place.

7/29/2008 4:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Please produce a study to back this viewpoint."

There are none that I know of. The point I was trying to make is that is bad eating habits existed before there was fast food. I'm also sure that if there was no such thing as fast food, there would also be less obesity cases. Fast food is not to blame, its the decisions of American's to eat an unreasonable amount of it.

Quote :

"It costs you and I more money."

I can't argue that. It does suck that we have to take on some of the burden for people's mistakes whether they have are gluttons or just to lazy to get a job. I think the goal should be to solve the problem proactively, not have the government treat us like pigs and form laws, etc. because we have no self control and sense of personal responsiblity.

Maybe it takes something like what has happened with tobacco. It's not illegal, but we are taught early on and constantly informed of the dangers of smoking. I'm 19 and I've never had a cigarette, nor have I ever had the desire to have one. I still feel that smoking should be completely legal.

Quote :

" [quote]Why does Chili's get a free pass and McD's can't open any new stores?"

Cause McDonalds is way better at what they do. Plus all of these wet blankets with nothing else to worry about have to pick on the big guy on DATELINE and 60 minutes. If you watch one of those things, they seem like they try to convince you that fast food is evil.

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM. Reason : damn im long winded]

7/29/2008 4:10:07 PM

Quote :

"as long as we continue to burry our heads in the personal responsiblity sand we'll be continually facing these problems into the future"

You're right. I'm sure absolving individuals of any accountability over their lives and just managing their lives for them will do a world of good... right? I mean, look at how well our government does that now!

Fat? It's not your fault that you chose a sedentary lifestyle and poor eating choices! Not fat? Well too bad, you're going to have to give up your freedom of choice because tubbo over there can't manage his.

Quote :

"^^It isn't about being "too stupid," it's about providing the proper motivation."

And nothing provides proper motivation like a boot the throat. Ah, yes.

Once again, call me when you can catch fat by getting sneezed on. Until then, it's explicitly the result of individual choices.

We can go back and forth over where bad policy puts a thumb on the scale and skews incentives (and in fact, have), but simple fact is, this isn't what's even under debate right here. You're demanding the right to make choices for people on the explicit premise that they are unable to do so themselves. However you want to dance around it, this is saying they're incompetent to make their own choices.

7/29/2008 4:51:22 PM

If you are REALLY poor to the point where you are concerned about eating enough calories to maintain your already underweight status, fast food restaurants are awesome

There's nowhere else I can get the calories and protein that are in a double cheeseburger for a dollar

7/29/2008 10:21:36 PM

Studies have shown that if the government has absolute control then it controls absolutely.

So what if a study shows a result can be obtained?

The whole bloody point is that it is not worth our collective freedom to achieve some hypothetical upgrade of public health.

Again, even if we cede the point that these totalitarian eating restrictions will produce a marked improvement in public health, it is not worth the exchange of freedom. The goal of government should not be to tweak society towards its optimum efficiency, this only makes sense if the government is in charge and not the people. The people will never agree on what constitutes the "utopia". I, for example, would rather eat the food I like and die a few years early. This to me is better than living my life in fear of the optimum nutrition. You are free to disagree. But, damn it, I'm an individual and what I do with my own body is none of your business.

7/29/2008 10:48:24 PM

i haven't read this thread. i don't particularly like the ban because i think that citizens should be able to choose for themselves what to eat. BUT. i think LA isn't in violation of the constitution with this either. it's prerogative how they want to run their city. it's funny that this has fueled a thread, yet there are countless cities and towns throughout the country that have ridiculous restrictions on all sorts of things (eg strip clubs or taco vans/trucks in the west these days)

7/29/2008 10:53:40 PM

Incorrect. it is a violation of the right to contract freely and the right to earn a living, both common law protections and is therefore in violation of the California State Constitution. This law is also a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, the constitutionality of a law is irrelevant in the 21st century, so I would not both mentioning it myself.

7/29/2008 11:06:09 PM

i meant the us constitution. i am obviously no scholar of the california constitution. but i doubt that this ban would fall under an equal protection violation. since when has the constitution implied that a city couldn't govern itself (and therefore decide what sort of businesses it wanted to allow -- within certain reasonable limits)?

7/29/2008 11:35:28 PM

That is just it, reasonable limits, and the limit in question is equality before the law. A city must treat all its citizens as equals and therefore all regulations must apply equally to all businesses. You cannot pass health regulations that only apply to McDonalds' owners just as you cannot pass regulations that only apply to black owned businesses.

This is why the big-box laws in Chicago and elsewhere, which were drafted in such a way that they effectively only applied to WalMart, were found unconstitutional. If this law came before the California Supreme Court I believe it to would be rejected on similar grounds. If you want to outlaw unhealthy food feel free, but the law will need to be enforced against both McDonalds and Chilli's equally. If you want to ban trans-fats then you cannot exempt Krispy Kreme.

7/30/2008 1:45:28 AM

Quote :

"And nothing provides proper motivation like a boot the throat. Ah, yes. "

Yet, with all those years of the boot to the throat, nothing has changed, it has only gotten worse.

7/30/2008 2:06:21 PM

Do we really want the gov't to be in the business of choosing winners and losers in life?

7/30/2008 9:38:46 PM

Half of overweight adults may be heart-healthy

Quote :

"CHICAGO — You can look great in a swimsuit and still be a heart attack waiting to happen. And you can also be overweight and otherwise healthy. A new study suggests that a surprising number of overweight people - about half - have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while an equally startling number of trim people suffer from some of the ills associated with obesity. The first national estimate of its kind bolsters the argument that you can be hefty but still healthy, or at least healthier than has been believed. The results also show that stereotypes about body size can be misleading, and that even 'less voluptuous' people can have risk factors commonly associated with obesity, said study author MaryFran Sowers, a University of Michigan obesity researcher. 'We're really talking about taking a look with a very different lens' at weight and health risks, Sowers said. In the study, about 51 percent of overweight adults, or roughly 36 million people nationwide, had mostly normal levels of blood pressure, cholesterol, blood fats called triglycerides and blood sugar. Almost one-third of obese adults, or nearly 20 million people, also were in this healthy range, meaning that none or only one of those measures was abnormal. Yet about a fourth of adults in the recommended-weight range had unhealthy levels of at least two of these measures. That means some 16 million of them are at risk for heart problems. It's no secret that thin people can develop heart-related problems and that fat people often do not. But that millions defy the stereotypes will come as a surprise to many people, Sowers said. Even so, there's growing debate about the accuracy of the standard method of calculating whether someone is overweight. Health officials rely on the body mass index, a weight-height ratio that does not distinguish between fat and lean tissue. The limits of that method were highlighted a few years ago when it was reported that the system would put nearly half of NBA players in the overweight category."

http://www.wral.com/news/science/story/3362917/

LOL!

8/13/2008 4:25:19 PM

interesting

8/13/2008 4:27:29 PM

Quote :

"In all weight categories, risk factors for heart problems were generally more common in older people, smokers and inactive people. Among obese people who were 50 to 64, just 20 percent were considered healthy compared with half of younger obese people."

Shocker. If you are fat now and don't get unfat, you have more health problems when you get older.

The conclusion that you can be overweight and not have health problems...right now...is one of the dumber things I've seen in awhile.

8/13/2008 4:57:30 PM

^
MaryFran Sowers, an obesity researcher at the University of Michigan

+

Judith Wylie-Rosett, a nutrition researcher at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York

+

The first national estimate of its kind

+

The new study appearing in the Archives of Internal Medicine (an international peer-reviewed professional medical journal published by the American Medical Association)

>>

One bald Internet loudmouth

8/13/2008 5:37:22 PM

I could pretty much take anything you've ever posted and apply the same pattern to it and get the same result you old sack of shit.

Please

Fucking please argue my point about being fat when you get older is the same as not being fat in regards to health problems.

Dumbass.

8/13/2008 5:38:56 PM

^ Um. . .you don't have a point, PoleTracks--you're just trolling as usual. You conveniently overlook the glaring fact that many people who are not fat will never make it to being "older"--because they'll die before they do. In contrast, many fat people will live long and relatively healthy lives.

I realize that this new national study is completely at odds with your weltanschauung. I understand that the study's results upset you to no end, but please don't take your frustrations out on me.

[Edited on August 13, 2008 at 5:53 PM. Reason : PS: Please refrain from using "in regards to" (sic). Thank you. ]

8/13/2008 5:52:20 PM

You're really an idiot. Just...retarded.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/168/15/1617

For starters, they used BMI for their classification, which has been controversial since it's inception.
They even say this in the study

Quote :

"BODY SIZE PHENOTYPE DEFINITIONS There is not yet a standardized definition of body size phenotypes."

The conclusions drawn are this

Quote :

"Results Among US adults 20 years and older, 23.5% (approximately 16.3 million adults) of normal-weight adults were metabolically abnormal, whereas 51.3% (approximately 35.9 million adults) of overweight adults and 31.7% (approximately 19.5 million adults) of obese adults were metabolically healthy. The independent correlates of clustering of cardiometabolic abnormalities among normal-weight individuals were older age, lower physical activity levels, and larger waist circumference. The independent correlates of 0 or 1 cardiometabolic abnormalities among overweight and obese individuals were younger age, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, higher physical activity levels, and smaller waist circumference."

Quote :

"You conveniently overlook the glaring fact that many people who are not fat will never make it to being "older"--because they'll die before they do. In contrast, many fat people will live long and relatively healthy lives."

You obviously don't comprehend what you read if these are the conclusions you draw.

Fuck it. I can show you how retarded you are and you'll still argue some dumb inane point.

The data is all there for you. Educate yourself, and still continue to live in ignorance.

[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM. Reason : x]

8/14/2008 9:37:15 AM

The food fascists are at it again:

Michael Phelps: A killer at large?

Quote :

"BEIJING -- Michael Phelps' endorsements of Kellogg's Frosted Flakes cereal and McDonald's has attracted criticism from the Children's International Obesity Foundation. In a statement Friday, the foundation said: 'As a role model and Olympic hero to America's children, Michael Phelps -- and all athletes and celebrities -- are asked to reconsider any connection to substances suspected as agents of obesity, including sugary cereals, soft drinks and other foods with refined carbohydrates, saturated fats, trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.' The statement referred to the documentary, 'Killer at Large,' about the causes of obesity in children, which will be released in November in New York. One of its producers, Bryan Young, said in the statement: 'Michael Phelps' endorsement will undoubtedly influence more children to nag their parents for products that endanger their health so that they can go home, consume these products and gain weight instead of becoming gold medalists. This is unconscionable and we hope that Michael Phelps reconsiders his endorsement contracts.' Whatever happened to being on the cover of the Wheaties box?"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2008/08/michael-phelp-3.html



I frown upon your flakes. *Sniff* *Smug*

And, of course, we just now built this guy up, so we must immediately begin to tear him down.

8/22/2008 5:24:55 PM

pretty pathetic...although I do agree he should be on a Wheaties box just cause thats what super bad ass athletes (at least used to) do

8/22/2008 5:49:37 PM

^ Yeah, but they didn't win eight gold medals in one Olympics. Frosted Flakes FTW!!!1

8/22/2008 6:43:48 PM