...Was it ever said that fat people only use motor carts because they're lazy? I didn't think it was. I'm sure plenty of overweight people do legitimately need them
I did.
Again, I'm sure there are people who do really need them, but I truly do suspect there are quite a number of people who don't. Or in the case of your friend, people who can walk just fine but don't until soon they find they can't.
Fair enough. But at least I've made it clear that it never came from my end.
Also, being fat doesn't cause diabetes. Eating insulin spiking foods does. Which, in a society where just about everything processed has sugar or high fructose corn syrup, is the reason why it's such a problem.
I just told the story the way I was told it, but yeah, that's one thing that I never really got. The only thing I can figure is that either being grossly overweight makes you more susceptible to it, or she just needed to get healthier in general.
I just told the story the way I was told it, but yeah, that's one thing that I never really got. The only thing I can figure is that either being grossly overweight makes you more susceptible to it, or she just needed to get healthier in general.
Food for thought: A calorie from one thing is not the same as a calorie from another. Before I joined job corps, I did a lot of research on the subject and found that there is a lot of misinformation about nutrition in the United States. The political demonization of fats (most studies about saturated fats in the early to mid 1900s were actually studying trans fats and at that time they had no idea there was a difference) led to companies cutting fats out of the american diet. But this meant there was no more flavor in foods, so they just replaced fats with sugars, the real fattening killer. Here's a neato lecture about it.
I began eating whole foods (despite my piddly little budget) and found that by cutting out the sugars in my diet, I had less food cravings and felt more invigorated. I lost 25 pounds just by changing this one thing in my diet. It's pretty much impossible to eat this way at Job Corps because the government keeps slashing our food budget so we have shitty food, so my weight has been at a stupid standstill.
But anyways, just don't assume because someone is thicker and is in a chair, it means that they are lazy or shouldn't be there. That's my main thing.
4:30 AM - First alarm went off. Checked my phone. Waited for second alarm at 4:45.
6:00 AM - My shift started.
6:10 AM - Woke up, found my phone under my pillow.
Thankfully, the manager working today is awesome. I called him as soon as I got up, ran out the door, and got to work 45 minutes late. So I ended up working 45 minutes later today, which was kind of weird because the other two stockers went home and I was on my own.
Now I remember why I hang around this forum... the folks here are generally smart... well at least smart enough to not hold the belief that "if there's a video of it on youtube, it must be true" anyway :P I'm going to sleep. I need to recuperate from stupidity overload.
These are both tremendous pet peeves of mine, seeing as how I'm an actual cripple and not some lazy fat person. Also: http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/203.abstract Bam. Weight is all about the calories. Don't eat? Don't replace calories. You live off of fat and it all sheds away. Simple shit.
Biology isn't that simple, and you can seriously mess yourself up by fasting too much. And even so, fasting only works if the food you do eat are healthy. If you still ate foods with a high concentration of trans-fats, which the body can't digest, you wouldn't lose weight very fast. And for very overweight people, they would have to fast for a very long time to make any sort of difference, and few people would have the willpower to do such a thing. I sure as hell wouldn't. I get super cranky and snap at everyone in sight if I so much as skip a meal.
Honestly, I don't really believe that dieting is the answer, anyways. Exercise is a much better alternative and helps prevent all sorts of other maladies as well. And with an interesting activity, it can even be enjoyable.
Found last year's Gift Card to GameStop. Went to check the balance. It still has $6 on it. Too bad that won't get me much of a discount on what I want as far as gaming goes.
Biology is like coding where you only know about two percent of the language and anything you try to write has a infinitesimally small chance of actually working. And even when it does work, it might activate subroutines that can royally screw things over.
Biology is like coding where you only know about two percent of the language and anything you try to write has a infinitesimally small chance of actually working. And even when it does work, it might activate subroutines that can royally screw things over.
So... like whenever I use the Construction Kit for Morrowind?
Wait. Calorie restriction works as a form of weight loss if you stay within a particular range of your body's caloric needs. Starvation mode and metabolic slowing only occur when you breach a lower threshold.
Also, of course diabetes and obesity are correlated. They don't have to be 1:1 correlations to be positively correlated.
Here 's a funny note about how fat intake is indeed a stage setter for diabetes:
"The Salk team, led by Marc Montminy, Ph.D., a professor in the Clayton Foundation Laboratories for Peptide Biology, discovered how a condition known as ER (endoplasmic reticulum) stress, which is induced by a high fat diet and is overly activated in obese people, triggers aberrant glucose production in the liver, an important step on the path to insulin resistance."
So... like whenever I use the Construction Kit for Morrowind?
YES! I think?
Also it's important to note that there are two basic types of diabetes. There's Type I, which is genetic and has nothing to do with weight, and Type II which has a correlation in overweight people and, if caught early enough, can be reversed by weight loss and healthy living. My father has the second type and seems to consistently remain twenty pounds away from not having it at all regardless of what he does.
Also, of course diabetes and obesity are correlated. They don't have to be 1:1 correlations to be positively correlated.
Correlation is not causation.
The way diabetes works has to do with blood sugar and insulin issues. And if you're not born with these issues, the way to become insulin resistant is to constantly eat glycemicly rich foods, which over stimulates insulin, which, in turn, keeps your body from using your fat stores, which makes you hungry. So you eat more and your body goes through this cycle again and again, and before you know it, you are both obese and have insulin resistance. Occasionally there'll be a person who metabolizes differently than the average person and doesn't store fats as much, but they are just as susceptible to the disease as one who did become obese.
And it's not like the average American, and increasingly every developed nation, can keep away from sugars and refined grains. They put in just about everything that is remotely processed. The only way you really can get away from it is to completely re-evaluate what you eat and cook your own meals.
Why do people see positive eugenics as a bad thing? Do they not understand the concept and conflate it with forcible eugenics as practiced by the Nazis? We could do so much good for the world if we made sure smart people with less or no genetically inheritable maladies bred more than those with a slew of genetic defects. Type I diabetes, for example, could be eradicated, saving society an untold toll.
Hell, I'm going to adopt (or practice selective implantation) if Comrade Mortis and I want kids later down the line simply because there's a chance my condition is genetic and I wouldn't dare continue it in my family. Eugenics can be a very good thing.
Because it infringes on freedom much like how the anti-child pornography internet censorship in Denmark started out with good intentions then spiraled out of control. If one wants to practice it on their own (AND ONLY THEMSELVES AND NOT INFRINGING THE RIGHTS OF THEIR CHILDREN) then that's fine. When you start defining what makes a person valuable and then applying it en masse, you're objectifying human worth. And, like it or not, that spirals out of control quickly.
Again, fine if you want to do it for yourself, never fine if it is infringing on one's freedom.
But that's not what positive eugenics is about. It would - hypothetically - give tax breaks and stipends to parents who are genetically healthy and incentivize healthy reproduction. This can only be a good thing.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that it would also pay those who would have genetically unhealthy children not to reproduce. This is a vital part of the scheme.
The way diabetes works has to do with blood sugar and insulin issues. And if you're not born with these issues, the way to become insulin resistant is to constantly eat glycemicly rich foods, which over stimulates insulin, which, in turn, keeps your body from using your fat stores, which makes you hungry. So you eat more and your body goes through this cycle again and again, and before you know it, you are both obese and have insulin resistance. Occasionally there'll be a person who metabolizes differently than the average person and doesn't store fats as much, but they are just as susceptible to the disease as one who did become obese.
And it's not like the average American, and increasingly every developed nation, can keep away from sugars and refined grains. They put in just about everything that is remotely processed. The only way you really can get away from it is to completely re-evaluate what you eat and cook your own meals.
Why do people see positive eugenics as a bad thing? Do they not understand the concept and conflate it with forcible eugenics as practiced by the Nazis? We could do so much good for the world if we made sure smart people with less or no genetically inheritable maladies bred more than those with a slew of genetic defects. Type I diabetes, for example, could be eradicated, saving society an untold toll.
Hell, I'm going to adopt (or practice selective implantation) if Comrade Mortis and I want kids later down the line simply because there's a chance my condition is genetic and I wouldn't dare continue it in my family. Eugenics can be a very good thing.
The problems I see with eugenics in general are the more or less arbitrary definitions of healthiness and genetic defects on the one hand and people's selfishness on the other hand. It is a matter of inequity.
What seems healthy under one circumstance may be considered a defect or unimportant under another. Taking the human race as a whole: in one point of our evolution we lost our ability to build ascorbic acid on our own, yet we were able to conquer even the polar regions of our planet.
In one point of our evolution it must have been a great advantage to gain weight in as litte time as possible, now we are developing type II diabetes and the metabolic syndrome.
The outcome is not predictable.
Of course, people may object from reproducing for various reasons but a positive enforcement requires strict rules of deciding who deserves some kind of reward and who doesn't deserve it. So do you expect someone who sees their 'geneticaly ill' neighbour getting a reward for adopting a healthy child, while they themselves are considered healthy, yet their own child has suffered from a physical trauma and needs special fostering - do you expect this person to just accept the decision that they are just not 'defect' enough to deserve a reward?
Maybe I just don't get your point here, so sorry if I get a little noisy for no reason. But my point is: Some people are not susceptible for measures of positive enforcement and it is just a thin line to the forced eugenics the Nazis were convinced were the best way to improve humanity.
So don't get me wrong: I am not against people trying to find ways to improve human live. But I am convinced that nobody is able to decide for another person which condition is healthy and which is not. And eugenics always requires people to decide for others (in what ever positive way they might think).
I wasn't terribly moved by it. As long as we make sure to educate the improved humans to be compassionate towards unmodified persons, why the bloody hell shouldn't we improve humanity? We're essentially at an evolutionary bottleneck. As soon as we can figure out how to make better people, we should. That is, to me, the ultimate promise of genetic manipulation.
The Science of Genetics shall be rendered obselete eventually.
I believe the future may rely on cybernetics.
Flaws can be fixed with technology, and bodies can be augmented.
Why wait for hundreds to thousands of years for genetic perfection, when our limitations can be surpassed in a few hundred.
We may all end up as robots, but by then, that would be insignificant, as those robots will be so advanced, they probably would be like partially organic super machines.
Comments
I did.
Again, I'm sure there are people who do really need them, but I truly do suspect there are quite a number of people who don't. Or in the case of your friend, people who can walk just fine but don't until soon they find they can't.
Only if Zorak's not running.
I miss my pet badger!
Well that's what you get for trusting a man with hair it could get lost in!
...unless YOU are that man. Are you?!
Fair enough. But at least I've made it clear that it never came from my end.
I just told the story the way I was told it, but yeah, that's one thing that I never really got. The only thing I can figure is that either being grossly overweight makes you more susceptible to it, or she just needed to get healthier in general.
That's the way it would be. Brak gets the blame and Zorak gets the power.
Food for thought: A calorie from one thing is not the same as a calorie from another. Before I joined job corps, I did a lot of research on the subject and found that there is a lot of misinformation about nutrition in the United States. The political demonization of fats (most studies about saturated fats in the early to mid 1900s were actually studying trans fats and at that time they had no idea there was a difference) led to companies cutting fats out of the american diet. But this meant there was no more flavor in foods, so they just replaced fats with sugars, the real fattening killer. Here's a neato lecture about it.
I began eating whole foods (despite my piddly little budget) and found that by cutting out the sugars in my diet, I had less food cravings and felt more invigorated. I lost 25 pounds just by changing this one thing in my diet. It's pretty much impossible to eat this way at Job Corps because the government keeps slashing our food budget so we have shitty food, so my weight has been at a stupid standstill.
But anyways, just don't assume because someone is thicker and is in a chair, it means that they are lazy or shouldn't be there. That's my main thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g
I hate when that happens....
Biology isn't that simple, and you can seriously mess yourself up by fasting too much. And even so, fasting only works if the food you do eat are healthy. If you still ate foods with a high concentration of trans-fats, which the body can't digest, you wouldn't lose weight very fast. And for very overweight people, they would have to fast for a very long time to make any sort of difference, and few people would have the willpower to do such a thing. I sure as hell wouldn't. I get super cranky and snap at everyone in sight if I so much as skip a meal.
Honestly, I don't really believe that dieting is the answer, anyways. Exercise is a much better alternative and helps prevent all sorts of other maladies as well. And with an interesting activity, it can even be enjoyable.
Biology is like coding where you only know about two percent of the language and anything you try to write has a infinitesimally small chance of actually working. And even when it does work, it might activate subroutines that can royally screw things over.
So... like whenever I use the Construction Kit for Morrowind?
Also, of course diabetes and obesity are correlated. They don't have to be 1:1 correlations to be positively correlated.
http://www.diabeticcareservices.com/diabetes-education/diabetes-and-obesity
http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20060420/diabetes-up-obesity-to-blame
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621143236.htm
Here 's a funny note about how fat intake is indeed a stage setter for diabetes:
"The Salk team, led by Marc Montminy, Ph.D., a professor in the Clayton Foundation Laboratories for Peptide Biology, discovered how a condition known as ER (endoplasmic reticulum) stress, which is induced by a high fat diet and is overly activated in obese people, triggers aberrant glucose production in the liver, an important step on the path to insulin resistance."
YES! I think?
Also it's important to note that there are two basic types of diabetes. There's Type I, which is genetic and has nothing to do with weight, and Type II which has a correlation in overweight people and, if caught early enough, can be reversed by weight loss and healthy living. My father has the second type and seems to consistently remain twenty pounds away from not having it at all regardless of what he does.
Correlation is not causation.
The way diabetes works has to do with blood sugar and insulin issues. And if you're not born with these issues, the way to become insulin resistant is to constantly eat glycemicly rich foods, which over stimulates insulin, which, in turn, keeps your body from using your fat stores, which makes you hungry. So you eat more and your body goes through this cycle again and again, and before you know it, you are both obese and have insulin resistance. Occasionally there'll be a person who metabolizes differently than the average person and doesn't store fats as much, but they are just as susceptible to the disease as one who did become obese.
And it's not like the average American, and increasingly every developed nation, can keep away from sugars and refined grains. They put in just about everything that is remotely processed. The only way you really can get away from it is to completely re-evaluate what you eat and cook your own meals.
Hell, I'm going to adopt (or practice selective implantation) if Comrade Mortis and I want kids later down the line simply because there's a chance my condition is genetic and I wouldn't dare continue it in my family. Eugenics can be a very good thing.
Again, fine if you want to do it for yourself, never fine if it is infringing on one's freedom.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that it would also pay those who would have genetically unhealthy children not to reproduce. This is a vital part of the scheme.
Good job using the Cigarette Company Defense.
After your bit about homosexuality, I feel dirty for agreeing with you DAISHI but that seems to be what that is.
Suuuuuuuure, man. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
Also, I am addicted to Dead Island.
The problems I see with eugenics in general are the more or less arbitrary definitions of healthiness and genetic defects on the one hand and people's selfishness on the other hand. It is a matter of inequity.
What seems healthy under one circumstance may be considered a defect or unimportant under another. Taking the human race as a whole: in one point of our evolution we lost our ability to build ascorbic acid on our own, yet we were able to conquer even the polar regions of our planet.
In one point of our evolution it must have been a great advantage to gain weight in as litte time as possible, now we are developing type II diabetes and the metabolic syndrome.
The outcome is not predictable.
Of course, people may object from reproducing for various reasons but a positive enforcement requires strict rules of deciding who deserves some kind of reward and who doesn't deserve it. So do you expect someone who sees their 'geneticaly ill' neighbour getting a reward for adopting a healthy child, while they themselves are considered healthy, yet their own child has suffered from a physical trauma and needs special fostering - do you expect this person to just accept the decision that they are just not 'defect' enough to deserve a reward?
Maybe I just don't get your point here, so sorry if I get a little noisy for no reason. But my point is: Some people are not susceptible for measures of positive enforcement and it is just a thin line to the forced eugenics the Nazis were convinced were the best way to improve humanity.
So don't get me wrong: I am not against people trying to find ways to improve human live. But I am convinced that nobody is able to decide for another person which condition is healthy and which is not. And eugenics always requires people to decide for others (in what ever positive way they might think).
Watch what?
I believe the future may rely on cybernetics.
Flaws can be fixed with technology, and bodies can be augmented.
Why wait for hundreds to thousands of years for genetic perfection, when our limitations can be surpassed in a few hundred.
We may all end up as robots, but by then, that would be insignificant, as those robots will be so advanced, they probably would be like partially organic super machines.