yar, agree.
Printable View
yar, agree.
best way to lose weight is through sport tbh.... doing something for fun with a side effect of making you lose weight is always going to be more sustainable
It really depends upon the sport. Even among professionals, you'd be amazed at how pathetically weak and out of shape many are. Baseball is by far the worst though.
the best people are fat AND athletic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlQk1...eature=related
Taxing milk and meat?? Not only are those already the more expensive part of a daily diet (as opposed to the dirt cheap grains) but they are important too.
Thats absurd. If you're going to tax something, tax restaurants and fast food. People cook for themselves and can adjust portions as necessary... And like was previously said, you can eat and drink as much as you want with portion control if you do want to eat out. Doesn't matter what, just matters how much
You know what they say is the real culprit of obesity: cheap food in general and corn syrup in particular. The invention of corn syrup and the vast amounts of corn allowed production of food to increase, excess food available meant larger packages of food meant larger portions (see the changes made in "one coke bottle" between inception and today)...
That trend has been reversing though... Smaller products for the same price.
While corn syrup is an issue, it is not THE issue. It's use predates the predates the process used to create partially hydrogenated oils, or trans fats, by about 50 years or so. Granted, neither became consumed en masse until the 70s, which is when most of the obesity issues really cranked up anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meeni
You want to know what I blame? Diet sodas. Not because of some off the wall assumption that they cause this, that, or the other disease...but pay attention the next time you see a heifer ordering his Double-Quarter Pounder, super sized. Watch what he gets to drink. Somehow, it has connected somewhere in the human brain that just because a person is drinking a diet soda, or even water, they are going to get less...wide, from consuming these products.
While your statement about portion control has truth, it is only partially true. Said control is very important, but there are some foods that should be avoided like the plague at ALL times, especially if one is trying to lose weight, and not just maintain.
As for milk...heh, I won't even go there. Take a damned coral calcium supplement and stop consuming the baby food of another animal. It's just foul. ;)
we have so much in common!!!!!Quote:
As for milk...heh, I won't even go there. Take a damned coral calcium supplement and stop consuming the baby food of another animal. It's just foul. ;)
I can be weird and philosophical with certain foods. Eating some things just seems wrong to me, no matter how 'good' it may taste. Kinda like a chicken and egg sandwich...think about that one for a second...I am fairly certain that if there is an afterlife, you go straight to hell for eating one. xDQuote:
Originally Posted by The Imp
i dunno that combo seems very natural to me... for example if i was out huntin wild chickens in 4000 BC i would find the momma chicken, eat that big bastard, and then i would eat the eggs it was sittin on...
UNLIKE the time i was huntin wild cow and I caught it, sucked on it's nipples, then killed it and ate its flesh.
If you did that, you'd probably be the smartest caveman around. And, also for this reason, probably the fattest.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Imp
I'm telling you that sandwich is evil...eating both stages of life of one animal in one bite...just not right.
Milk is just so...blech. I don't even like the idea of HUMAN milk, let alone a cow's. Also, not to go all vegan hippie, considering I do love some meat, but that whole 'kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy' thing is just wrong.
They actually do already subsidize "healthy foods"(largely produce) in many poor neighborhoods of the United States. At least since they began, however, it has been largely a failed policy.
"Sin taxes" have, however, shown at least a moderate level of success. Of course, there "success" is exclusively located in the altering of habits by the least advantaged, making them not only incredibly paternalistic, but also incredibly racist and classist(considering the demographic differences between those making/advocating the laws, and those whose behaviors are actually altered by them).
Even the most casual look at demographics would show this to be true. However, ANY tax put on a good before it hits shelves could be considered classist, since it will affect the poorest people, no matter how you look at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Topsy
EDIT: Then again, I don't exactly see people screaming classism, or racism about the rich white guy when they impose higher taxes on things like yachts, private airplanes, etc.
That's because its the guys putting the tax on the yachts that are buying them.
But yes, in general, sale tax is the most regressive possible form of tax. But while in theory all items are harder to buy due to higher tax, in practice it is only those items that people buy regardless that have an effect--thus cigarettes and fatty food for poor people, and yachts and cognac for rich people. But you'll never see them tax something like yacht's to the point where rich people can't buy them, or else they might as well just make it illigal.
I actually have never fully understood why taxes on something like cigarettes are acceptable under the 14nth amendment in the US(fair and equal protection clause).