|
BGrifter posted:I'd rather keep talking about Sarah Hoffman. She's super cute. Mods, please change this poster's name to Sir Mix-A-Lot.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
PT6A posted:Mods, please change this poster's name to Sir Mix-A-Lot. I cannot lie. Also all about that bass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
sliderule posted:No, not magic. Did you really cite an incredibly rare medical occurrence as proof that people become obese without overeating?  Quality fatlogic.If you gain weight, it's always because you consumed more energy than you took in. If you lose weight it's always because you burned more energy than you took in. Medical conditions, medication, and other circumstances will change your burn rate, but it still comes down to very basic energy flow. Sarah Hoffman is, most likely, your garden-variety glutton rather than a tragic victim of a medical curiosity, and appointing her Minister of Health is a sad surrender to the obesity epidemic that has been sweeping the West and its subsequent glorification and normalization. vyelkin posted:It's just the honeymoon period, it'll wear off soon enough. I don't mind the enthusiasm. "Back to normal" is still going to be much more interaction with the press and Canada than we've had for the past decade. It's nice to have a PM who tells us what he's going to do before he does it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:I cannot lie. I like big butts too, but only single chins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Brannock posted:I don't mind the enthusiasm. "Back to normal" is still going to be much more interaction with the press and Canada than we've had for the past decade. It's nice to have a PM who tells us what he's going to do before he does it. @justintrudeau Meet me @RealCdnSS in Ottawa, shopping for groceries today Someone will certainly appreciate the articles of Trudeau buying eggs @ RCSS in Ottawa
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Leaving aside the fact that fatness is usually more complicated than just "bad habits" No it's not, you fat sack of poo poo. Fat people eat too much and don't do any exercise. So they get fat. I know this because I stopped being fat when I started exercising and eating less, and so does everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
jm20 posted:@justintrudeau Now that I think of it, I wouldn't mind running into the PM at the grocer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Fat people eat too much and don't do any exercise. So they get fat. I know this because I stopped being fat when I started exercising and eating less, and so does everyone else. Wow, really? Me too! There might be something to this...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Gerry Butts came up with that "because it's 2015" line, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Gerry Butts came up with that "because it's 2015" line, lol I like Gerry Butts and I cannot lie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Pretty sure I heard that line in the early 1990s in every form of popular media. At the time it was "welcome to the 90s". Sad that someone thinks they should assign credit to something like that. This is no "axis of evil".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Pretty sure I heard that line in the early 1990s in every form of popular media. At the time it was "welcome to the 90s". Sad that someone thinks they should assign credit to something like that. This is no "axis of evil". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tA4X1eyYvM
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:No it's not, you fat sack of poo poo. My go to meal is quinoa and beans and one of my favorite past times is chilling out to an audiobook while going on a long run. Then again even when I spent years being physically inactive and eating junkfood I never had any problems with my weight so honestly I mostly assume my fitness is a function of genetics. Either way you're going to have to find a different angle for why we apparently disagree on the causes of obesity. And if obesity is just an issue of personal morality then what exactly happened in the 1980s? Millions of people simultaneously just lost all their self control? You don't think there's any evidence here of some underlying social or medical factors that go beyond some trite condemnation of other people's moral problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Can someone recommend a good piece about the decline of the NDP post-Layton? I'm an American and don't follow Canadian politics that closely, but I was thrilled when Jack Layton led a perennial third-place party into becoming the major opposition, and am fascinated by how Mulcair and the rest of the NDP managed to squander that. I realize some of it has to do with what a poo poo leader Ignatieff was for the Dippers, how charismatic Trudeau is and so on, but I'd really like to know some of the internal reasons for the NDP wane other than the usual "Muclair moved the party too much to the center" hand-wave. I'm not saying watering-down the NDP even more wasn't one of the reasons for their failure, just that I want more substance than that. I guess I have just a nasty visceral reaction to both Harper (pro-business bible salesman) and Trudeau (vacuous photogenic weatherman) that I cannot understand why the NDP couldn't have done well in this election In the absence of any such piece, I welcome thoughtful offensives on my ignorant American conceptions
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:My go to meal is quinoa and beans and one of my favorite past times is chilling out to an audiobook while going on a long run. Then again even when I spent years being physically inactive and eating junkfood I never had any problems with my weight so honestly I mostly assume my fitness is a function of genetics. Either way you're going to have to find a different angle for why we apparently disagree on the causes of obesity. It is never genetics. As someone who also tends towards being "naturally" thin, the much more likely cause is that you were seriously underestimating how much you were eating even when you were sedentary and eating junk. Helsing posted:And if obesity is just an issue of personal morality then what exactly happened in the 1980s? Millions of people simultaneously just lost all their self control? You don't think there's any evidence here of some underlying social or medical factors that go beyond some trite condemnation of other people's moral problems. Actually, yeah, you're not too far off there. Companies have been getting much, much better at designing processed foods that are difficult to stop eating. "Once you pop, you can't stop", right? The other thing here is you're conflating population-level issues with personal-level issues. The solution to solve a population-wide problem is very rarely going to be the same solution to solve personal problems. Telling all of North America to suck it up, eat less, and move more isn't going to solve poo poo, but it will absolutely work for an individual as long as that individual is honest with themselves and honest in their effort to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Rona Ambrose is CPC interim leader. Man how awesome a minister she was in Environment and Health. Very effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:My go to meal is quinoa and beans and one of my favorite past times is chilling out to an audiobook while going on a long run. Then again even when I spent years being physically inactive and eating junkfood I never had any problems with my weight so honestly I mostly assume my fitness is a function of genetics. Either way you're going to have to find a different angle for why we apparently disagree on the causes of obesity. The foods people eat now are much calorie denser than before. Genetics or illness will determine base metabolism (which does not differ much), whereas the food you input is entirely of your own control. It's very hard to get as large as some of the geriatrics do without HFCS, I'd wager it is impossible barring serious illness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Brannock posted:It is never genetics. As someone who also tends towards being "naturally" thin, the much more likely cause is that you were seriously underestimating how much you were eating even when you were sedentary and eating junk. This is dumb. Two people don't absorb the same amount of calories from eating the same food. Some people produce more enzymes of one type than another, meaning any given food might have a higher or lower caloric availability. Some people's intestines are six feet longer than some other people's. People with mild lactose deficiencies get far fewer calories out of drinking milk. Then, different people expend different amounts of energy to actually process those different kinds of food. Some foods trigger a mild immune response during digestion due to pathogens, which costs more calories. There so many variables in play all the time. I have personally lived and eaten every meal every day with people who weighed much more than I did, and I would regularly eat all of my plate and then some of theirs, and I probably spent $50 a week at the bulk barn on chocolate and candy. My exercise regimen was rock band and internet arguments, and they used an elliptical. They weighed over 200 lbs the entire time, only a ketosis diet eventually saw any weight change. I'm 5'8" and I can't get my weight above 130 for the life of me, no matter how much I eat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
 interim leader Rona Ambrose e: lol they used preferential ballot cheese sandwich fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Twiin posted:This is dumb. Two people don't absorb the same amount of calories from eating the same food. Some people produce more enzymes of one type than another, meaning any given food might have a higher or lower caloric availability. Some people's intestines are six feet longer than some other people's. People with mild lactose deficiencies get far fewer calories out of drinking milk. Then, different people expend different amounts of energy to actually process those different kinds of food. Some foods trigger a mild immune response during digestion due to pathogens, which costs more calories. There so many variables in play all the time. You can't conflate your weight with another persons unless you literally eat the same meals at the same times. People don't get large by eating rice cakes and salads without tons of mayo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Panama Red posted:Can someone recommend a good piece about the decline of the NDP post-Layton? I'm an American and don't follow Canadian politics that closely, but I was thrilled when Jack Layton led a perennial third-place party into becoming the major opposition, and am fascinated by how Mulcair and the rest of the NDP managed to squander that. I realize some of it has to do with what a poo poo leader Ignatieff was for the Dippers, how charismatic Trudeau is and so on, but I'd really like to know some of the internal reasons for the NDP wane other than the usual "Muclair moved the party too much to the center" hand-wave. I'm not saying watering-down the NDP even more wasn't one of the reasons for their failure, just that I want more substance than that. The party leadership is seemingly married to an ineffective campaign style and they are resistant to any criticism or open discussion of these failures. They think we just need to knock on more doors and make more phone calls. This worked out OK last time because the Liberals had a terrible leader in Michael Ignatieff, especially in contrast to Layton. Not so much this time, and it does not help that the Liberals continue to enjoy the favour of the establishment much more than the NDP ever will. I would suggest checking out Stuart Parker, he's been writing at length about the election from the NDP perspective: quote:In recent days, left and labour activists have been piling on the NDP criticism bus, offering their views on how we lost over half our seats in last week’s election. This is a good thing to be doing right now, with the election campaign still fresh in our minds. But I have to say that I am, for the most part, pretty disappointed by the criticisms I am hearing. Already, they are converging into two or three themes and various bloggers and columnists are turning into a fairly bland chorus that rehearses a series of predictable points about the NDP’s air game, mainly involving niqabs and balanced budgets. Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Twiin posted:This is dumb. Two people don't absorb the same amount of calories from eating the same food. Some people produce more enzymes of one type than another, meaning any given food might have a higher or lower caloric availability. Some people's intestines are six feet longer than some other people's. People with mild lactose deficiencies get far fewer calories out of drinking milk. Then, different people expend different amounts of energy to actually process those different kinds of food. Some foods trigger a mild immune response during digestion due to pathogens, which costs more calories. There so many variables in play all the time. Genetics can make you thin, because as you point out your body can process things very inefficiently, but it can't make you fat, because it can't create calories where none existed before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Twiin posted:This is dumb. Two people don't absorb the same amount of calories from eating the same food. Some people produce more enzymes of one type than another, meaning any given food might have a higher or lower caloric availability. Some people's intestines are six feet longer than some other people's. People with mild lactose deficiencies get far fewer calories out of drinking milk. Then, different people expend different amounts of energy to actually process those different kinds of food. Some foods trigger a mild immune response during digestion due to pathogens, which costs more calories. There so many variables in play all the time. Okay, neat. Eat less (or different foods) if you're that much more efficient at getting energy out of your food, or more if you want to gain weight and your body sucks at processing food. Pay attention to your body and how it responds. The sort of physiological differences you're describing here don't typically amount to much more than a 200 calorie difference between individual BMRs, you know, and usually less than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Actually, yeah, you're not too far off there. Companies have been getting much, much better at designing processed foods that are difficult to stop eating. "Once you pop, you can't stop", right? In addition to this people tend to report higher levels of stress today than they did in the past, and a greater percentage of the population live in auto-dependent suburbs. My physical fitness is likely correlated in part with the fact I was raised eating home cooked meals and lived in a densely populated urban core where walking and cycling were more convenient than driving. I didn't even bother to get my driving license until a few years ago, whereas most suburbanites I know get one as soon as they turn 16. quote:The other thing here is you're conflating population-level issues with personal-level issues. The solution to solve a population-wide problem is very rarely going to be the same solution to solve personal problems. Telling all of North America to suck it up, eat less, and move more isn't going to solve poo poo, but it will absolutely work for an individual as long as that individual is honest with themselves and honest in their effort to change. To the contrary I think it's you guys who are conflating the two. Sure if you're an individual who is fat then instead of doing an in-depth analysis on the social determinants of health you should probably start count your calories, eat fewer carbs and become more physically active. However, we're talking about whether somebody is suitable to be an over-glorified pencil pusher mostly enacting someone else's agenda at the top of a government department. I don't think their personal fitness is relevant to their qualifications for the job, much in the way that I would not give a poo poo if she were a smoker. Call me when you uncover some evidence of either job-related incompetence or corruption on her part and then I'll be concerned. PT6A posted:Genetics can make you thin, because as you point out your body can process things very inefficiently, but it can't make you fat, because it can't create calories where none existed before. It can impact how you process food or how easily you exercise. It might also give you a predisposition toward addiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Brannock you're not necessarily wrong about some of what you're saying but you're discounting a hell of a lot of genetic factors that kick in once a person does become significantly overweight (obese) that make it incredibly difficult to return to a normal weight, and virtually impossible to return to a normal weight permanently. Those of us with good genes or who have never been overweight often try to make a connection between "I put on 20 pounds once and then worked it off by eating healthier and working out, so why can't 300 pound people do the same thing on a larger scale?" but it's really not that simple.quote:A paper published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews proposed that “food addiction” is a less accurate description of this condition than “eating addiction”. There is little evidence that people who are driven to overeat become dependent on a single ingredient; instead they tend to seek out a range of highly palatable, energy-dense foods, of the kind with which we are now surrounded. quote:People who are merely overweight, rather than obese (in other words who have a body mass index of 25 to 30) appear not to suffer from the same biochemical adaptations: their size is not “stamped in”. For them, changes of diet and exercise are likely to be effective. But urging obese people to buck up produces nothing but misery. quote:Why do we have an obesity epidemic? Has the composition of the human species changed? Have we suffered a general collapse in willpower? No. The evidence points to high-fat, high-sugar foods that overwhelm the impulse control of children and young adults, packaged and promoted to create the impression that they are fun, cool and life-enhancing. Many are placed in the shops where children are bound to encounter them: around the tills, at grasping height. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/obesity-incurable-disease-cameron-punishing-sufferers The way to tackle obesity is not to say "Buck up, fat people, you lazy slobs, and buy a gym membership!" It's to go to the source and regulate food producers to stop literally poisoning children in order to get them addicted to food that will slowly kill them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
I know someone who suffered a knee injury (also was also caught up in a highly stressful and intense work project that required constant attention for many months) and they got quite fat as a result. Then they had trouble working off the weight because of their injury and also because they were now fat. They then entered a pattern where after months of inactivity they would become super active for short bursts. This would simply cause them to injurer themselves and then they'd slide back in a malaise. Their work-life, mental health, as well as a certain degree of "path dependence" (i.e. once you get fat it's harder to become thin again) all combined to create a very real challenge for this individual that went beyond a mere personal failing. Even though their behavior and actions obviously play a big role in their weight I find it reductive and somewhat misleading to boil this problem down to a mere lack of self control. People don't get to exercise full control over their life circumstances and when somebody under a lot of pressure slips up I don't find it helpful to place all the pressure on them, much in the way I don't think good drug policy gets developed when you ignore all the social factors behind, say, heroin or meth usage. And again, all of this is just a distraction from the fact that her weight has no bearing on her actual job performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Helsing sounds familiar to my personal situation. Cancer and radiation treatment caused me to gained 80lbs and I have struggled to lose it constantly
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The way to tackle obesity is not to say "Buck up, fat people, you lazy slobs, and buy a gym membership!" It's to go to the source and regulate food producers to stop literally poisoning children in order to get them addicted to food that will slowly kill them. That's exactly what he said: Brannock posted:Actually, yeah, you're not too far off there. Companies have been getting much, much better at designing processed foods that are difficult to stop eating. "Once you pop, you can't stop", right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:That's exactly what he said: "it will absolutely work for an individual as long as that individual is honest with themselves and honest in their effort to change" is not exactly true though. quote:across a nine-year study of 176,000 obese people, 98.3% of the men and 97.8% of the women failed to return to a healthy weight But I guess "Buck up, fat people, you have a 2% chance of returning to a healthy weight" is better, sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
brucio posted:Rona Ambrose is CPC interim leader. Man how awesome a minister she was in Environment and Health. Very effective. merit merit merit
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Destroy car culture, massive investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, mandatory high school cooking classes. Save massive amounts of money on health care costs while also saving people money and making them happier. Cars, lovely food, and a lovely built environment are killing us and making us fat, stressed, and generally miserable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Brannock you're not necessarily wrong about some of what you're saying but you're discounting a hell of a lot of genetic factors that kick in once a person does become significantly overweight (obese) that make it incredibly difficult to return to a normal weight, and virtually impossible to return to a normal weight permanently. Those of us with good genes or who have never been overweight often try to make a connection between "I put on 20 pounds once and then worked it off by eating healthier and working out, so why can't 300 pound people do the same thing on a larger scale?" but it's really not that simple. To be honest I can think of quite a few other societal problems typically left up to individuals to fix that require a similar source-focused approach -- energy conservation, reduction in waste and pollution, and so on. But yes, you're right and I'll concede that once people cross that threshold of obesity the game changes entirely, sadly. All the better reason to discourage it from happening in the first place. vyelkin posted:"it will absolutely work for an individual as long as that individual is honest with themselves and honest in their effort to change" is not exactly true though. There are a lot of intersecting factors that go on when someone is trying to lose weight - not least the sabotage and rejection from their peers. And even aside from that people are very practiced at deceiving themselves. You might be familiar with the show "Secret Eaters", or with the fad diet industry? A 2% success rate across all obese people who have tried to lose weight doesn't mean that someone tackling the problem with genuine effort and real diet and lifestyle changes has a 2% chance of succeeding. I don't have much more to say on the topic. Thanks for the responses, vyelkin and Helsing, I appreciated them. edit: Baronjutter posted:Destroy car culture, massive investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, mandatory high school cooking classes. Save massive amounts of money on health care costs while also saving people money and making them happier. A man after my heart!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Anyway back on the "merit" topic. It's already been pointed out that the cabinet is well qualified, more so than Harper's for sure. But there's another problem underlying the complaints from the whiners, and that is the assumption that merit alone should be the only criteria used in selecting the cabinet. The whole point of parliament is that it's supposed to "represent" us, the citizens. But it only intrinsically represents us based on where we live. You vote as a citizen of riding X and a representative is chosen to represent that riding. Anything else about you, your age, your class, your gender, your ethnicity, your religion, etc. is not represented, only where you physically live. It makes sense then that the parties ought to correct for this and ensure that they offer a slate of candidates that matches the diversity of the populace along those dimensions, and that should they form government the cabinet should be likewise representative. That is not to say that qualifications aren't important of course, you don't want to put someone into a position they aren't qualified for just to have a token minority (which is a pretty insulting thing to do actually), but qualifications shouldn't be the only consideration either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Destroy car culture, massive investment in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, mandatory high school cooking classes. Save massive amounts of money on health care costs while also saving people money and making them happier. And tons of weed
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
420 smoke democracy every day
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Improved mental health, better work life balance and shorter commutes will go a long way towards better health among the populace. It's way easy to let yourself go when you're always loving mentally exhausted and want nothing more than to curl up on the couch watch a movie trying to escape the reality of your bullshit existence for the few precious hours you have to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
car culture is the backbone of freedom and democracy you ppl are insane
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Also job security for sure. I'd be willing to put down a good chunk of money betting that the decline of long term job security is a major contributing factor to the increase in mental and physical health issues in our population.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
I never said losing weight was easy, I'm saying that fat people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise. If your'e honest about why you're fat then you're not so bad as one of these idiots who pretends that their body can violate the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
I could have sworn we had a forum for this...
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2015 23:48
|
|
