Posted on 05/16/2008 9:29:21 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
LOL - I KNEW this was coming, I just didn’t know it would actually happen so fast!
I’ve been thinking about writing a piece about what some people who are REALLY committed to Mother Earth can do for “her”.
Something like no more than 500 calories a day, one bowel movement per week, and some kind of self imposed fine, like a swear jar, each time one passes gas they must invest 5 dollars in carbon credits.
To avoid hypocrisy totally, some must make the ULTIMATE sacrifice, we’ve seen people set themselves on fire for a cause, what better way to make a statement than to drink the Kool-Aid, any fires will release too much CO2 into the atmosphere. STOP BREATHING you hypocrites!!!!
Communism never gets the blame.
Can I sue myself?
If so, how much can I get from myself?
Huh? Simply eliminating processed grains will solve our obesity problem? Banning HFCS will stop people from consuming other readily available sweeteners (sucrose) and will result in Americans reducing their intake of carbohydrates?
I thought the obesity issue was caused primarily by people consuming far more calories than they burn. Silly me.
Thank you! I knew that there was a reason for my existence. LOL!
It’s not nice to have fun at the expanse of the overweight.
FMCDH(BITS)
They’ve also redefined who is “fat”. BMI treats muscle, bone, and fat all the same. And dictates that a man should weigh the same as a woman.
It's all about economics. Sweeteners are cheap, especially HFCS, and starch without fiber is cheap. If sweeteners were more expensive and fiber filled foods less expensive, then people would consume more, feel fuller longer, and keep the body from peaking from sugar/carbohydrate highs and demanding another hit when the low comes around.
I would never do that. Just at the expense of Michael Moore. And Rosie O’Donnell... I forgot about her.
Socialize all of the property of both Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore, and you’ve eliminated the national debt, solved the world hunger problem, cured the healthcare shortage, etc. in one move, and at the same time given them both what they’ve been demanding all along.
Seriously. BMI is far more about creating a crisis than identifying one. Look! 30 million more people are fat now that we redefined what "fat" means!
You have hit the nail exactly on the head.
The stresses of high taxes, out of control corporate demands on employees, stagnant wages, and problems with spouses and children and parents, can contribute to appetite problems. It’s not “gluttony”. Reduce the stress you all put us under before you stress us all into eating disorders.
Obese people are contributing to the world food crisis and climate change, experts say.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine calculated the obese consume 18% more calories than average.
Hygienists? So the guys in charge of making sure the chef washes his hands in hot soapy water after taking a dump are suddenly experts on diet, agricultural policies and climate change?
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n06499713-fat-diabetes/
CHICAGO, May 6, 2008 (Reuters) — A type of fat that accumulates around the hips and bottom may actually offer some protection against diabetes, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.
They said subcutaneous fat, or fat that collects under the skin, helped to improve sensitivity to the hormone insulin, which regulates blood sugar.
Mice that got transplants of this type of fat deep into their abdomens lost weight and their fat cells shrank, even though they made no changes in their diet or activity levels.
“It was a surprising result,” said Dr. Ronald Kahn of Harvard Medical School in Boston, whose study appears in the journal Cell Metabolism.
“We actually found it had a beneficial effect, and it was especially true when you put it inside the abdomen,” Kahn said in a telephone interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsdaily.com ...
good news for Hillary and Hugh Jass.
Carolyn
No, it's about calories in vs. calories out.
Sweeteners are cheap, especially HFCS, and starch without fiber is cheap.
Not all sweeteners are cheap. Eating starch that's high in fiber vs. starch that's low in fiber is still eating starch. It won't do a thing to alleviate the obesity problem we're facing like you're suggesting.
If sweeteners were more expensive and fiber filled foods less expensive, then people would consume more, feel fuller longer, and keep the body from peaking from sugar/carbohydrate highs and demanding another hit when the low comes around.
If sweeteners were more expensive people would simply pay more for sweetened foods. What makes you think they're going to eschew sweets for higher fiber foods? That doesn't make any sense. Do you think increasing the price of soda is going to motivate people to eat more 100% wheat bread?
Americans are consuming too many calories, mostly from carbs, and are not exercising enough, which is why we see so many more fat people these days. You blaming refined flour and HFCS is nothing more than a calorie distraction.
Funnily enough Purdue agrees...
Carolyn
Ha, that's funny. Read a book.
What makes you think they're going to eschew sweets for higher fiber foods? That doesn't make any sense.
You must be one of those people who have a high metabolism and think all fat people are lazy gluttons, right? Economics still hold. Little Debbie cakes are 1/4th the price of an equivalent number of apples. Someone who wants something sweet will on average gravitate to the least expensive option. Money trumps health.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.