[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tell me, what is “bad” about juice, cereal and flavored yogurt?
[/quote]
Sugar. And it’s not fructose.
Finnish Health Ministery researched about the cost of smokers for the system.
They are cheaper than healthy people because they die, on average, at a younger age. Old people require more attention (resources!) in the last 10-15 years of their lives than during the rest of their live together.
Smokers, always talking about average, don’t require that old age care.
I have no idea on the numbers of deaths caused by obesity vs smoking, but I guess that the same logic applies somehow.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
James- I partly agree. More education won’t solve it. However, while most people know a big mac isn’t good for you, most people think eggs are bad and cereal is good. They also think juice is good, or that as long as their sandwich is whole wheat they are good to go. They think flavored yogurts are good, cereal bars are ok as long as they have oatmeal in them.
People know, yet are confused at the same time.[/quote]
In the go those ideas where from?
More government “education”?
Really?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
James- I partly agree. More education won’t solve it. However, while most people know a big mac isn’t good for you, most people think eggs are bad and cereal is good. They also think juice is good, or that as long as their sandwich is whole wheat they are good to go. They think flavored yogurts are good, cereal bars are ok as long as they have oatmeal in them.
People know, yet are confused at the same time.[/quote]
In the go those ideas where from?
More government “education”?
Really?[/quote]
I’d love to see a subject in school about basic nutrition, economy, etc.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Perhaps my question for you is, would you not agree that water/green tea would be a better option for a beverage.
That a salad with meat would be a better option than a sandwich and 4 slices of deli turkey.
That plain yogurt with their own added berries would be better than flavored?[/quote]
No.
I would agree that people are more likely to change once they learn to eat for a PURPOSE and stop randomly labeling shit as “bad” and “good”.
I drank green tea for years. My reasons? It was lower in calories and had less sugar. Why did I want those things? Because I had a goal of losing some body fat and not drinking something all day that would just give me cavities and make that harder.
MY REASON is why I ate that way. It wasn’t because someone labeled it “bad” or “good” for me.
Get it?
Why would plain yogurt be the better option for all people?
Oh wait…you just mean the fat ones…because we will somehow teach the country what not to eat but only speak to one side of the room.
Teach goals and teach lifestyle…but quit trying to put labels on all food like that because I just may want that rootbeer one day and it won’t kill me.[/quote]
“Oh wait…you just mean the fat ones…because we will somehow teach the country what not to eat but only speak to one side of the room.”
Yes. Exactly. We should teach that “Its generally not good to eat this, and if you’re fat you REALLY shouldn’t eat this.”
People like you just feed the problem because fat people, in debating what to eat, will think “Oh, that big muscular guy said no food is bad or good, so I shouldn’t think of this Big Mac as bad…”
Yes, X. Some foods are bad. Let me explain some simple things to you:
Bad food = food that has a net negative effect on your body
Bad food =/= food that instantly kills you.
So your argument that “Drinking that root beer won’t kill me!” doesn’t make a case for that root beer is good for you.
Get it?[/quote]
What you dont seem to get that it is all about choices.
If someone wants to stuff his face with junk food and accepts that he will most likely live a shorter and less healthy life, junk food is GOOD.
For him.
You dont get to make decisions for other people, not even what priorities they should have.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
James- I partly agree. More education won’t solve it. However, while most people know a big mac isn’t good for you, most people think eggs are bad and cereal is good. They also think juice is good, or that as long as their sandwich is whole wheat they are good to go. They think flavored yogurts are good, cereal bars are ok as long as they have oatmeal in them.
People know, yet are confused at the same time.[/quote]
In the go those ideas where from?
More government “education”?
Really?[/quote]
I’d love to see a subject in school about basic nutrition, economy, etc.
[/quote]
Yet another ideological battlefield, with all that entails?
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Eh…why not accept?
some obese folks are brilliant teachers…some thin ones are baby murderers…
Body comp doesn’t mean anything about a person other than they eat dirty and don’t move around a lot
Having visible abs or a 8 inch deep belly button…all I care about is the contribution to the community the individual makes
[/quote]
Well, I didn’t make it much past the first page. I figure this pretty much ended the thread way back when.
Maybe things got funny on page 2?
.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
James- I partly agree. More education won’t solve it. However, while most people know a big mac isn’t good for you, most people think eggs are bad and cereal is good. They also think juice is good, or that as long as their sandwich is whole wheat they are good to go. They think flavored yogurts are good, cereal bars are ok as long as they have oatmeal in them.
People know, yet are confused at the same time.[/quote]
In the go those ideas where from?
More government “education”?
Really?[/quote]
I’d love to see a subject in school about basic nutrition, economy, etc.
[/quote]
Yet another ideological battlefield, with all that entails?
[/quote]
The subject about economy wouldn’t be about what is better, if interventionism or free market or whatever, but that if a bank offers 4% monthly interest rate and some comissions, then it means that this is actually X. How loans and mortages work and things like that.
Not to teach people what to do with their money, but what happens to it in certain situations.
About nutrition? The same. It’s not like “Don’t eat this”, but rather, proteins work like this, carbs are for that, etc.
So people have more information to make their choices.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tell me, what is “bad” about juice, cereal and flavored yogurt?
[/quote]
Sugar. And it’s not fructose.[/quote]
don’t tell a dentist that sugar has negative health effects… btw- I’m not imlying sugar is bad, but when you have people consuming all that stuff on a typical day for years on end, it’s gonna lead to health issues.
[quote]test driven wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]test driven wrote:
Don’t hate fat people. They help keep medical premiums down. It’s fucks that live forever that put a strain on Medicare. [/quote]
Fuck no they don’t. Obesity related diseases are the only single factor that raise insurance premiums across entire risk pools all by themselves.
Screw nationalized health care, make obesity a felony. It’s basically a ponzi scheme.[/quote]
Would u agree that a person who lives to 95 will, cumulatively, access healthcare more than a diabetes patient who dies at 42?[/quote]
Dear All,
I don’t work in the health insurance industry so I apologize if my explanation seems overly simple, but my understanding of it is as follows…
Lets look at it this way. Assume that everyone ultimately pays for their own health care, either directly (uninsured) or in varying degrees on indrectness (private insurance or nationalised health care).
From an insurance business perspective, the ideal patient is one that lives to be a hundred while remaining in good health their entire life before dying very suddenly. For arguments sake, lets assume that insurance costs $2000 per year, this person would have contributed $200K (plus interest) by the time they died whereas a single, final visit to the hospital via ambulance may only cost a few thousand.
From a financial perspective, the absolute worst ‘clients’ would be children with cancer because their contribution into the fund so far is only a few thousand dollars whereas the cost of their treatment could be a few hundred thousand.
Now where would a fat person who dies at 42 be? If they died quickly due to an undiagnosed heart ailment then that person would still have contributed less than the hundred year old. If your talking about someone who spent their entire lives with obesity induced conditions such as diabetes and requires lifelong medication and treatment, then the obese person would probably cost much more than the old person.
Think about how much extra in medical expenses obesity is costing and add to that the money the economy loses through reduced productivity. I think that obesity is costing the healthcare system a ridiculous amount of money, especially when medical equipment has to be redesigned for obese patients:
New MRI to image through the fat:
http://calorielab.com/news/2009/01/22/obese-patients-challenges-mri-maternity-australia/
New Stretchers because ambulance staff aren’t Powerlifters:
Regular operating tables can’t take the weight:
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/jun09/clinical1.asp
I don’t work in the health industry but I have friends and relatives who do and there are significant OH&S risks involved with working around obese patients. While I think obese people should be treated decently and NOT be abused or demonised, obesity itself is a very serious threat to the economy of any country.
Anyway, that’s my $US0.018 worth. Thanks and feel free to correct me…
[quote]moderatelyfatman wrote:
[quote]test driven wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]test driven wrote:
Don’t hate fat people. They help keep medical premiums down. It’s fucks that live forever that put a strain on Medicare. [/quote]
Fuck no they don’t. Obesity related diseases are the only single factor that raise insurance premiums across entire risk pools all by themselves.
Screw nationalized health care, make obesity a felony. It’s basically a ponzi scheme.[/quote]
Would u agree that a person who lives to 95 will, cumulatively, access healthcare more than a diabetes patient who dies at 42?[/quote]
Dear All,
I don’t work in the health insurance industry so I apologize if my explanation seems overly simple, but my understanding of it is as follows…
Lets look at it this way. Assume that everyone ultimately pays for their own health care, either directly (uninsured) or in varying degrees on indrectness (private insurance or nationalised health care).
From an insurance business perspective, the ideal patient is one that lives to be a hundred while remaining in good health their entire life before dying very suddenly. For arguments sake, lets assume that insurance costs $2000 per year, this person would have contributed $200K (plus interest) by the time they died whereas a single, final visit to the hospital via ambulance may only cost a few thousand.
From a financial perspective, the absolute worst ‘clients’ would be children with cancer because their contribution into the fund so far is only a few thousand dollars whereas the cost of their treatment could be a few hundred thousand.
Now where would a fat person who dies at 42 be? If they died quickly due to an undiagnosed heart ailment then that person would still have contributed less than the hundred year old. If your talking about someone who spent their entire lives with obesity induced conditions such as diabetes and requires lifelong medication and treatment, then the obese person would probably cost much more than the old person.
Think about how much extra in medical expenses obesity is costing and add to that the money the economy loses through reduced productivity. I think that obesity is costing the healthcare system a ridiculous amount of money, especially when medical equipment has to be redesigned for obese patients:
New MRI to image through the fat:
http://calorielab.com/news/2009/01/22/obese-patients-challenges-mri-maternity-australia/
New Stretchers because ambulance staff aren’t Powerlifters:
Regular operating tables can’t take the weight:
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/jun09/clinical1.asp
I don’t work in the health industry but I have friends and relatives who do and there are significant OH&S risks involved with working around obese patients. While I think obese people should be treated decently and NOT be abused or demonised, obesity itself is a very serious threat to the economy of any country.
Anyway, that’s my $US0.018 worth. Thanks and feel free to correct me…
[/quote]
You seem new around here. Reasoned arguments are ignored for the sake of internet tennis, volleys of insults and argumentative speech launched back and forth until someone quits. So do not be surprised if this is the only response to your post. Good post, carry on.
moderatelyfatman, that study by the Finnish Health Ministery showed that, for smokers and the health system, is better if people die young.
That kind goes against your point. The logic is that people are very, very expensive to the health system when they have retired and for their last 10-20 years of life.
[quote]Christine wrote:
This has been interesting, but I have decided people really don’t want to take any effort into thinking about what they eat.
I have fat friends, and they make no excuses (at least around me) for their fatness. I tell them the truth. They don’t want to do what it takes.
We still get along just fine.
I really do think there is an information overload as well.
[/quote]
Information overload and contradictory information as well.
Most peoples knowledge comes from the mass media. How many people fell for the fat free craze and gorged on pastries as long as it was low fat?
^4 +/-- a few hundred thousand
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
You seem new around here. Reasoned arguments are ignored for the sake of internet tennis, volleys of insults and argumentative speech launched back and forth until someone quits. So do not be surprised if this is the only response to your post. Good post, carry on.[/quote]
Troof.
The internet isn’t really for the exchange of information and the enlightenment of the masses, despite that some might consider it so… it’s really more for bullying and berating your “opponent” for the sake of the spectators. No one cares who is actually right, only who crafts the sharpest barbs.
Very few log on to actually discuss topics. Most people post in order to show their intellectual superiority by belittling those with opposing viewpoints and acting incredulous that there are individuals who can actually manage to function in society while holding a viewpoint different than their own. It’s not so much a game of chess as it is a marathon… the person with the most stamina is the one who manages to get the last word in and smugly chooses to believe the reason the argument finally ended was because he finally boxed the other guy into a corner.
The day someone posts on a forum, “Ya know what? I hadn’t considered that before! I stand corrected!” is the day the entire internet implodes.
But I guess that’s what makes it so fun.
to: moderatlyfatman, sweet post ! Keep it up !
According to the US Department of Health and Human Services:
Older People Are Much More Likely To Be Among the Top-spending Percentiles
The elderly (age 65 and over) made up around 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2002, but they consumed 36 percent of total U.S. personal health care expenses. The average health care expense in 2002 was $11,089 per year for elderly people but only $3,352 per year for working-age people (ages 19-64).5 Similar differences among age groups are reflected in the data on the top 5 percent of health care spenders.
People 65-79 (9 percent of the total population) represented 29 percent of the top 5 percent of spenders. Similarly, people 80 years and older (about 3 percent of the population) accounted for 14 percent of the top 5 percent of spenders (Chart 2, 40 KB).2 However, within age groups, spending is less concentrated among those age 65 and over than for the under-65 population.
The top 5 percent of elderly spenders accounted for 34 percent of all expenses by the elderly in 2002, while the top 5 percent of non-elderly spenders accounted for 49 percent of expenses by the non-elderly.4
An acute episode of pneumonia or a motor vehicle accident might lead to an expensive hospitalization for an otherwise healthy person, who might be in the top 1 percent for just that year but have few expenses in subsequent years. Similarly, many people have chronic conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, which are fairly expensive to treat on an ongoing basis for the rest of their lives, but in most years will not put them at the very top of health care spenders.
However, each year some of those with chronic conditions will have acute episodes or complications requiring a hospitalization or other more expensive treatment.
You seem new around here. Reasoned arguments are ignored for the sake of internet tennis, volleys of insults and argumentative speech launched back and forth until someone quits. So do not be surprised if this is the only response to your post. Good post, carry on.[/quote]
Dear Texas Ag,
I guess I am relatively new to this so how do we do this? I think I should start by misinterpreting your comment and jumping to a conclusion about your intelligence/political views/gender preference etc. to which you should respond in kind. Then I’ll up the ante by citing research from the Journal of Irreproducible Science which shows that you are completely wrong. You will then rebuttal my arguments by citing contradicting data from papers published by the Bikini Institute of Technology where upon I will ignore everything you posted to critique your spellling errors. You will then compare me to Hitler and in return I will compare you to Stalin after which I will scream at the moderator to get you banned. Then one week later we’ll find another post and do it again.
Alright, here I go: I think that your choice of Avatar (Cyptotrama chrysopeplum?) is really lame. Psilocybe cyanofriscosa is a far superior myconoid!
[quote]moderatelyfatman wrote:
Dear Texas Ag,
I guess I am relatively new to this so how do we do this? I think I should start by misinterpreting your comment and jumping to a conclusion about your intelligence/political views/gender preference etc. to which you should respond in kind. Then I’ll up the ante by citing research from the Journal of Irreproducible Science which shows that you are completely wrong. You will then rebuttal my arguments by citing contradicting data from papers published by the Bikini Institute of Technology where upon I will ignore everything you posted to critique your spellling errors. You will then compare me to Hitler and in return I will compare you to Stalin after which I will scream at the moderator to get you banned. Then one week later we’ll find another post and do it again.
Alright, here I go: I think that your choice of Avatar (Cyptotrama chrysopeplum?) is really lame. Psilocybe cyanofriscosa is a far superior myconoid![/quote]
You’re new here?