Sorry I couldn't help myself read that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/...as_consumption
Printable View
Sorry I couldn't help myself read that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/...as_consumption
People phail fiziks.
Yes, less weight(yar) yields a lesser need for power needed in order to propel an object. I thought this was obvious.
It is. I just found that funny only an idiot won't know that.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Now that they have discovered this extraordinary phenomenon, I wonder what will be the next breakthrough in science?
:idea2:
Tomorrow they will discover that if you don't drive your car, it will not use any gas at all!
:shame:
No way!!!!!!!!:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: You mean bein gravitationally privledged doesnt lend yourself to having good gas mileage? But obviously tomorrow the scientists involved in this recent study will be apologizing to the masses for insulting them. Their gravitationally privledged because of genetics darnit, not the big mac.
________________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
RidicolusQuote:
BigTex
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
Now, don't start to make things up. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
I would appreciate if thread titles would be chosen more "wisely" (i.e. to be less insulting/offensive)
Just exactly how fat does one need to be before they qualify for being a *** in your book, Csar?
Well, this just tears it. We need to put laws on the books outlawing BMI's of 25.1 or higher. Or I know... if you're over 25.0, you're not allowed to use motorized transportation of any form. Just picture the parade of fatties riding their bicyles 20 miles to work each way every day! In the rain!!! Stupid fatties! Hippos on parade! Can our bridges and other bicycle infrastructure support that kind of weight?
If you're being sarcastic here, then you might want to do a bit more reading...Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Are you saying that there is a genetic disease that makes you horrifyingly overweight and affects everyone who just happens to be consuming absurd amounts food high in fat and sugar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Genetics has little to do with it. Its still a matter of consuming about what you burn. Genetics can play with your metabolism and some other parts but still it comes down to your eating more then you need. 99% of the times if your gravitationally privledged, you and you alone are to blame. Hook that TV up to a power generator connected to your exercise bike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Its somewhere in between, there is proof that very few people are obese through no fault of their own (ie. medical problems), however the vast majority of the gravitationally privilaged simply dont eat healthily and excercise enough (unless they play rugby). Again some people do have slower metabolysm's (is that spelt right?) than others, which is down to genetics, and they will find it harder to stay healthy, however al it takes is a bit of excercise, so i'm incline dto be unsympathetic :2thumbsup:
No. Are you are attempting a poor strawman argument or are you completely failing to interpret my post correctly. Either way, I suggest you rectify this before you respond again.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I do not deny personal responsibility in obesity (hence the recent epidemic when there was not one before). However, you clearly over inflate it, and your caustic remarks don't help. Please provide medical research that backs up your number of 99%.Quote:
Genetics has little to do with it. Its still a matter of consuming about what you burn. Genetics can play with your metabolism and some other parts but still it comes down to your eating more then you need. 99% of the times if your gravitationally privledged, you and you alone are to blame. Hook that TV up to a power generator connected to your exercise bike.
Hormone imbalances and glandular defects are present in only around 5% of obesity cases, but the role of polymorphisms in genes that predispose one to obesity is greater. Of course, there is still a large proportion of causative genes to be found (and of course, availability of food is necessary for this potential to be reached). The fact is that there is an amalgamation of genetic factors and non genetic factors responsible for the epidemic.
Denying or marginalizing genetic factors is counterproductive to remedying the epidemic. Alcoholism also has genetic factors, yet people are still held to be responsible, simply because genetic factors can be overcome. The same is true for obesity.
Being overweight clearly has genetic links. Look at Pacific islanders for a start. Only the heaviest ones survived to get to their islands, and once you introduce McDonald's, issues arise.
Regardless, there's only one person to blame if you get fat. No excuses (unless you're physically unable to do anything for another reason).
In short, you are the main factor. If you sit on your a** and eat too much, you'll be obese. Genetics simply do not have as much to do with it as you make it out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
No, I'm afraid it's the other way around. My statements are based on medical research. Your statements seem to be based on a knee jerk reaction combined with your personal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Please be sure to cover your fronts before throwing out an underhand insult. You have yet to provide one reliable source to support your own claims. Waving the "based on medical research" claim does not satisfy me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Just to be clear, I have already agreed that genetics have a significant part in some cases. The problem I have with your claims is that you refuse to recognize the control factor. In order for the gene factor to be fully true, there must be an availability of caloric intake. What if there is only a modest amount of intake available? A subject would function on that given intake alone.
Presence of self control seems to be enough in a give case of "predisposition".
Some (or maybe all of us to some degree) are predisposed to put on weight to deal with feast and famine environments.
There is a link to modern society (less physical work and far higher caloric intake over an uninterrupted period) and things such as poor skin and obesity and then knock on effects such asheart problems, fertility issues and behavourial problems.
In the end of the day if you know that you are predisposed to put on weight you have less of an excuse then someone who doesn't have such a family history. If you are standing on the side of the road and watch your family walk into traffic and get killed you are an idiot for stepping out in front of a truck... that is what happens to those who have a history of Syndrome X or even normal diabetes in the family who continue to eat a poor diet. If you are standing on the footpath talking to your family and then suddenly a plane dumps its fecal matter from 10,000 up and hits you square on, that is pure bad luck... this is the realm of someone who is eating normally and getting a heart attack at thirty.
So in short if you have a genetic history of obesity in your family you don't have an excuse you have prior warning of where poor behaviour in food and exercise will lead you.
=][=
As for the better gas mileage... most of us would do better by just filling the gas tank half way up to reduce weight rather then losing a couple of kilos... race cars do it... however given the weight of most cars and assorted stuff left in them a mere half a tank full wil not amount to much of a bonus.
"Underhand insult"? I attacked the argument, not the person. Are you actually making the claim that your statement of "Are you saying that there is a genetic disease that makes you horrifyingly overweight and affects everyone who just happens to be consuming absurd amounts food high in fat and sugar?" was not a knee jerk response to my statement of "If you're being sarcastic here, then you might want to do a bit more reading..." which itself was a response to the statement of BigTex which completely marginalized the genetic factor in obesity?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Read over some of your comments on the thread, and then excuse me for being so trite...
My statements are in fact based on medical research. The fact that I have not provided sources does not change this fact. For your satisfaction however:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
http://depts.washington.edu/cgph/cen...ls/obesity.htm
After you have finished going through this, feel free to ask for more studies.
Once again, you have misinterpreted my posts. Please show me where I "refuse to recognize the control factor".Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
My involvement in this thread is directly due to people marginalizing or belittling the genetic factors in obesity.
My first post in this thread was a response to BigTex's sarcastic statement of:
Now my response never "refuse[d] to recognize the control factor", rather, it responded by calling out the sarcasm and suggesting to actually take a look into the medical studies on a genetics/obesity link.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Now, your response to this was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Now, can you give me an alternative theory into what this post might be except for a sarcastic strawman argument or a complete misinterpretation of my post?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Then you come up with this statement:
To which I respond:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The fact is, there has been a tendency on this thread to completely disregard the genetic factors. Just look at some of the comments made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
And yet, ironically, I get accused of overinflating the genetic factors, and accused of "refus[ing] to recognize the control factor". :rolleyes:
Both charges are clearly false.
The first due to medical research, the second due to the fact that I have explicitly affirmed personal responsibility on this very thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
**************************************************************************************************Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Compare with:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
God, no one is discounting genetics! BigTex merely pointed out what Pape later clarified: Genetics do not shove food down your throat as much you do. The post (Pape's) also takes into account certain cases where it is not that simple. As for your alcoholism argument, it is a poor argument because alcohol is an addictive substance that is not just available in the open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Good for you. Now read the very first sentence on that page and analyze what it could mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
??? That's a tough one. I got one too: Point out in my posts where I did not use the term "a**graber".
My involvement in this thread is directly due to people marginalizing or belittling the genetic factors in obesity.[/QUOTE]
That's good, but you are over-reacting. Read Pape's argument. I'm sure most of the people you are trying to "enlighten" have the same view.
Reenk, I no longer wish to follow this mess. Tell me what you are trying to argue exactly so we can put this to rest. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Just read the thread over again, clarity should follow. For some reason, you have been dismissive of many of my arguments in your last post...
My point remains clear:
Genetic disorders are directly responsible for around 5% of obesity cases. Genetics indirectly play a larger part in the epidemic. The widspread availibility of unhealthy foods has allowed the epidemic to reach its potential. It is important to use every tool to combat the epidemic. Denying or marginalizing genetic factors is counterproductive to remedying the epidemic.
What is your point now, or what exactly is your problem with my point?
My belief:
Genetic factors are involved in obesity, but can only be blamed to a degree. People are different and their bodies have differing needs. There is no standard diet or standard regimen that will work for everyone. One must balance his or her needs to remain healthy. Focusing too much blame on genetics makes the cause an excuse and is counter productive to remedying the epidemic.
So (going on previous statements you made) you believe that I focus too much on genetics?
A little, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
NOTE: THIS WAS EDITED BEFORE THE FOLLOWING POST WAS ADDED. Not that it matters.
Edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Ok, fair enough. Now, might I inquire as to which statement(s) of mine gave you this impression?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
To reciprocate, I believed that there was too much dismissal of the genetic factor in obesity due to these statements:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Wow. Just. Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
The 'abc' was due to the three character minimum the board requires...Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I hate these situations...Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
It was more or less the manner in which you reacted to such comments. I was, and perhaps Tex was too, refering to cases in which genetics may be used as an excuse.
My comments were indeed trite, though this was due to the original comments in themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Understandable. It seems that I tend to cause confusion with my own posts. Oops. I'll try to be more clear in such situations.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've seen two people argue about being fat in the Backroom...to think that I thought all of this political vomit was drivel.
Why do you think I was so willing to end it?