Skip to comments.
Obesity fight must shift from personal blame-U.S. panel
Reuters ^
| 5/8/12
| Sharon Begley
Posted on 05/08/2012 11:52:13 AM PDT by EBH
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 last
To: Codeflier; dagogo redux
Oh and PS...just imagine being the dogs in the governments reduced calorie and increased exercise scheme....
61
posted on
05/09/2012 6:37:48 AM PDT
by
EBH
(The redistribution of another man's money, does not create wealth for the "greater good.")
To: Codeflier
Biochemist? Really? Time to head back to the books!
Your “simple” question is indeed simple, and simple in the extreme given the number and complexity of the factors involved.
Start off, please, by defining your terms: define “metabolism” in all it’s intricacies in sickness and health, then define “burned.” Then explain the complexities of the physiology whereby energy “consumed” from internal or external sources, is transformed into weight lost or gained in some supposed 1:1 correlation.
Then go back and define exactly what everybody means by “consumed,” which lies at the heart of this discussion.
Explain real-world phenomena that fly in the face of your argument like low-carb diets and “rabbit starvation,” or the “empty calories” in alcohol, or the weight loss sometimes seen in diabetics eating ravenously.
Biochemist. Hmpph.
62
posted on
05/09/2012 7:43:15 AM PDT
by
dagogo redux
(A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
To: dagogo redux
or the weight loss sometimes seen in diabetics eating ravenously. Biochemist. Hmpph.
MD?
Bwahahaha
63
posted on
05/09/2012 8:04:44 AM PDT
by
going hot
(Happiness is a momma deuce)
To: EBH
Shifting this from personal responsiblity makes an opening
for government to step in!
To: Codeflier; dagogo redux
And if your two arguments about weight-loss are any example of the government trying to manage the NATION’S weight problem, we’ve just seen a glimpse into why this won’t work and why it is so dangerous to hand this much authority over to them. LOL...
Thank you both.
65
posted on
05/09/2012 11:43:53 AM PDT
by
EBH
(The redistribution of another man's money, does not create wealth for the "greater good.")
To: dagogo redux
First let's define what I think we are arguing. I posit the simple formula that the human body gains weight when it's net caloric input exceeds net caloric output. Inversely, when net caloric input is lower than net caloric output there is a net loss in body weight.
You seem to disagree with this simple relationship. Now metabolic rate and other physiological variables can affect the output side of the equation, but they do not change the basic relationship between caloric input vs. output
To put it another way, you seem to be arguing that you believe it is possible for someone to consume less calories than they use and still gain weight. I argue that formula is biochemically impossible. Or are you one of those that believe the human body can use sunlight as a caloric food source?
66
posted on
05/09/2012 1:13:02 PM PDT
by
Codeflier
(Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama - 4 democrat presidents in a row and counting...)
To: firebrand; John Semmens; thulldud
67
posted on
05/13/2012 1:28:13 PM PDT
by
EBH
(Obama took away your American Dreams and replaced them with "Dreams from My (his) Father".)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson