• Arizona to fine obese people on welfare if they don't follow their doctors diets
    203 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29912232]Just a tip, that really cheap ground beef makes excellent burgers if you season it a little. Dirt cheap too.[/QUOTE] ground beef is also pretty horrible for you if you're looking to lose fat + gain muscle (which i am) - the protein / pound is pretty meh in comparison to turkey and chicken
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29912324]ground beef is also pretty horrible for you if you're looking to lose fat + gain muscle (which i am) - the protein / pound is pretty meh in comparison to turkey and chicken[/QUOTE] That's why you vary what you eat and don't eat the whole thing in one sitting.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29911370]IF YOU EAT UNHEALTHY FOOD YOU HAVE AN UNHEALTHY BODY YOU MAY GET RID OF THE OBESITY BUT GUESS WHAT YOU'LL HAVE A SHITLOAD OF OTHER PROBLEMS FOR THE DOCS TO DEAL WITH aka doesn't solve SHIT[/QUOTE] The method of argumentation you are using is a vast simplification of what is really being said and it is assuming far to much to have any validity. I'll rephrase what you said. "Yes, you are correct in that the kinds of food you eat have little connection with weight loss assuming a proper diet, but the issue with unhealthy foods is that they cause other health problems". The issue with such a claim is that you are not addressing the health issues caused by "unhealthy foods", and to further that, for your claims to have any merit, you'd need to prove that these heath issues have a good chance of occurring under a proper diet. I hope you don't think I'm suggesting that a 100% junk food diet would be as equally good for you health. What I'm more suggesting is that it is very possible to be healthy while eating what is considered to be "unhealthy food" granted a proper diet.
What if you don't have a doctor? :v:
I used to be absolutely huge. I weighed 270 pounds at the beginning of last summer. I'm currently down to 180. It's honestly not hard to lose weight as long as you don't have some sort of medical condition. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] Really, all I do is jog and not eat like a slob.
More fat poor people! [editline]19th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ThatHippyMan;29915682]I used to be absolutely huge. I weighed 270 pounds at the beginning of last summer. I'm currently down to 180. It's honestly not hard to lose weight as long as you don't have some sort of medical condition. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] Really, all I do is jog and not eat like a slob.[/QUOTE] Did you look like your avatar?
[QUOTE=Pepin;29910884] A lot of these healthy foods people recommend are foods that have a low amount of calories so you aren't risking much by overeating. If overeating is the issue, vegetables may help you a lot, but there is some crazy misconception that you have to eat foods labeled as healthy to be healthy.[/QUOTE] You are assuming that lower weight is always healthier than higher weight, which is patently untrue. If you exercise a fair bit and eat pretty healthily, and are still overweight, chances are you are far more healthy than the skinnyfat person who just eats a small amount of junk food, and nothing else.
[QUOTE=Contag;29920467]You are assuming that lower weight is always healthier than higher weight, which is patently untrue. If you exercise a fair bit and eat pretty healthily, and are still overweight, chances are you are far more healthy than the skinnyfat person who just eats a small amount of junk food, and nothing else.[/QUOTE]This is truth. I have a friend name Bill who is stub-height. He can outrun almost every person at our school, and all he does is exercise, and eat junk food.
And even then, eating healthy while living a sedentary diet is only part of it, you still need to exercise. [editline]19th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;29920501]This is truth. I have a friend name Bill who is stub-height. He can outrun almost every person at our school, and all he does is exercise, and eat junk food.[/QUOTE] Powerlifters are a pretty good example of the other end of the scale. If you saw a powerlifter walking down the street, most people would think 'fat fuck'.
[QUOTE=Contag;29920502]And even then, eating healthy while living a sedentary diet is only part of it, you still need to exercise. [editline]19th May 2011[/editline] Powerlifters are a pretty good example of the other end of the scale. If you saw a powerlifter walking down the street, most people would think 'fat fuck'.[/QUOTE] I was about to mention that earlier on, but didn't want to start an arguement! I actually need to work out soon, anyone got a few links? (Getting a beer gut from drinking so much pop)
[QUOTE=Perfumly;29910683]Whey protein is cheap as shit and it's perfectly fine to get your protein in every day. A cheap multivitamin can replace a lot of the vitamins you get from fruits and vegetables as well. Losing weight isn't about eating healthy, it's about eating less. There is no possible scenario in which losing weight would cost more money than gaining weight.[/QUOTE] Those aren't foods you can feed a family with genius Poor people aren't fat because of a lack of nutrition they're fat because of an overintake of fats and sugars that are prevalent in cheap food
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29920749]Those aren't foods you can feed a family with genius Poor people aren't fat because of a lack of nutrition they're fat because of an overintake of fats and sugars that are prevalent in cheap food[/QUOTE] not to mention the grains and starches its cheap and delicious but will make you fat as fuck in no time
This would be great if doctors knew shit about how metabolisms work. We understand very little about how the human body functions. The best results come from eating basically what we would have eaten 200,000 years ago when we first became homo-sapien-sapien. Namely a large amount of meat, some nuts, and various veggies/berries. The occasional fruit is also healthy. This diet allows for near unlimited calorie consumption without unnecessary fat buildup. On said diet you will drop to a healthy weight and remain there for as long as you maintain some remote semblance of the diet. Why? Because that was what we evolved with. The body is entirely capable of monitoring your fat content and, exactly like it does with your muscle mass, will adjust the amount to match your needs. Muscle, when not in use, will decrease in mass. This isn't news to just about anyone. The part that not a lot of people realize is that this is actually an evolutionary feature, rather than a setback. When you have a lot of muscle, your daily base calorie requirements go through the roof. Just like all moving parts, your muscles consume huge amounts of energy simply to maintain and move. So in the wild your muscle mass would increase/decrease in order to match the strength required of them so as to maximize your caloric efficiency. Fucking awesome if you think about it. More to the point, your fat does exactly the same thing, but for slightly different reasons. On a normal diet, if you go for long periods of time without eating, and then eat a bunch, your body will store extra fat to see you through the next gap. If you eat the necessary amount regularly, the body will only store a small amount of fat necessary for insulation and emergency food shortages. Again, the point is to maximize efficiency while minimizing caloric consumption. (EDIT: I wonder if being exposed to extreme cold or heat while on the diet would increase or decrease your ideal weight? Does the body actively recognize fat as a proper insulator and adjust accordingly?) But the modern diet throws a giant wrench into shit. Carbohydrates in small amounts are expected, but in the modern diet they comprise a huge portion of what we eat. They fuck everything to hell and your body can't compensate because from an evolutionary standpoint, it has no mechanism to do so. Your stomach can break them down and use them for energy, but your body doesn't really know how to handle the excess energy. As a result you gain fat and your blood sugar does this rollercoaster thing all day long. Anyways now we have the problem that the field of nutrition is fucked up because, while there are doctors who specialize in nutrition, the title isn't regulated like other titles. Anyone can call themselves a nutrionist. This has fooled even many doctors into buying into bullshit diets and such. This isn't to say that there is anything wrong with other diets (Vegetarians and vegans excluded, as they are almost universally stupid), it is just that to say any other diet is "healthy" isn't really correct. Some diets are less damaging, some diets cause you to lose weight really well, other diets make you feel pretty good, but there is really only a select few diets which are healthy. Of course it is all a moot point because even if the doctors were prescribing the proper diet, it would A) Be impossible to afford it on welfare (healthy food, in virtually any sense of the word, is far more expensive than unhealthy food) and B) BE THE GOVERNMENT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO EAT. I don't care who you are, or what your views on government are, but that is fucking ridiculous. People who think they should let the government determine their diet should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
[release]Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups. The scientists took an unusual approach, essentially comparing the price of a calorie in a junk food to one consumed in a healthier meal. Although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks. The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. [b][highlight]Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.[/b][/highlight] The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent. ... Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. [b][highlight]Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods.[/b][/highlight][/release] [url=http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/]Source[/url] It's easy to find dozens more studies that show the exact same result across North America. This is why poor people are fat. It has very little to do with willpower or "getting off the couch".
i'm really liking this whole "be reasonable while making large posts" thing gunfox has goin on
Yeah, I'm sorry I called you names in the GMF gunfox
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921230] It's easy to find dozens more studies that show the exact same result across North America. This is why poor people are fat. It has very little to do with willpower or "getting off the couch".[/QUOTE] of course, it's very easy to make shit that's built out of fats and carbohydrates that will stay on the shelves for days healthy food is fresh things that rot very quickly. basically, the more bacteria wants something to eat, the better it is for you. if you're eating shit that won't go bad even after a year, you're eating some awful shit. no surprise it takes mcdonald's fucking ages to decompose.
[QUOTE=thisispain;29921302]of course, it's very easy to make shit that's built out of fats and carbohydrates that will stay on the shelves for days healthy food is fresh things that rot very quickly. basically, the more bacteria wants something to eat, the better it is for you. if you're eating shit that won't go bad even after a year, you're eating some awful shit. no surprise it takes mcdonald's fucking ages to decompose.[/QUOTE] haha good rule of thumb if mold doesnt even wanna eat it then why should you i mean should we really be less picky than mold
[QUOTE=thisispain;29921302] if you're eating shit that won't go bad even after a year, you're eating some awful shit. no surprise it takes mcdonald's fucking ages to decompose.[/QUOTE] They actually did a thing with that, McDonald's takes as long to break down as any homemade hamburger [url=http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-myth-of-the-non-decomposing-mcdonalds-hamburger/]Right here[/url], I am a source-finding MACHINE today
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921318]They actually did a thing with that, McDonald's takes as long to break down as any homemade hamburger [url=http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-myth-of-the-non-decomposing-mcdonalds-hamburger/]Right here[/url], I am a source-finding MACHINE today[/QUOTE] homemade burgers are also unhealthy as shit
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921230][release]Healthy eating really does cost more. That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups. The scientists took an unusual approach, essentially comparing the price of a calorie in a junk food to one consumed in a healthier meal. Although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks. The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. [b][highlight]Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.[/b][/highlight] The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent. ... Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. [b][highlight]Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods.[/b][/highlight][/release] [url=http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/]Source[/url] It's easy to find dozens more studies that show the exact same result across North America. This is why poor people are fat. It has very little to do with willpower or "getting off the couch".[/QUOTE] One thing I will note is that the study doesn't seem to take meat into account properly. Veggies are certainly healthy, but they are only half of the coin. Given the calorie density of meat, it would certainly reduce the cost of eating healthy per day pretty significantly, but even assuming it reduced it by half, you'd still be way above that of what it could cost to eat junk food all day. The study is still valid, I just disagree with some of the parameters about what determines a healthy food.
[QUOTE=GunFox;29921334]One thing I will note is that the study doesn't seem to take meat into account properly. Veggies are certainly healthy, but they are only half of the coin. Given the calorie density of meat, it would certainly reduce the cost of eating healthy per day pretty significantly, but even assuming it reduced it by half, you'd still be way above that of what it could cost to eat junk food all day. The study is still valid, I just disagree with some of the parameters about what determines a healthy food.[/QUOTE] It's hard to eat really healthy with meat though, the best option is poultry and fish and those just happen to be the most expensive meats. It isn't unheard of to spend $20 on a package of 3-5 chicken breasts here.
You know whats also a good idea? Crockpots, and if you have the ability too do so... Hunting. I know a lot of people don't like killing animals, but if you can hunt you can store your fridge for about a month or two.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921354]It's hard to eat really healthy with meat though, the best option is poultry and fish and those just happen to be the most expensive meats. It isn't unheard of to spend $20 on a package of 6 chicken breasts here.[/QUOTE] wait what? chicken is the cheapest meat that you can find around here my parents used to practically shove chicken down my familys throats because it was cheap enough fish is the expensive one, and you can substitute real fish for shrimp to get the omega 3 and crap
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;29921374]You know whats also a good idea? Crockpots, and if you have the ability too do so... Hunting. I know a lot of people don't like killing animals, but if you can hunt you can store your fridge for about a month or two.[/QUOTE] If someone is too poor to afford decent food I doubt they can afford the time it takes to track a deer all weekend. However, fishing is quite economical. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;29921381]wait what? chicken is the cheapest meat that you can find around here my parents used to practically shove chicken down my familys throats because it was cheap enough fish is the expensive one, and you can substitute real fish for shrimp to get the omega 3 and crap[/QUOTE] Here I can buy three times as many high-quality beef steaks at half the cost of chicken breasts
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921382]If someone is too poor to afford decent food I doubt they can afford the time it takes to track a deer all weekend.[/QUOTE] Espicially in Arizona... Good point. It sucks theirs not really a way to eat healthy or get decent amount of food without walking on foot to a local food bank.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29921382]If someone is too poor to afford decent food I doubt they can afford the time it takes to track a deer all weekend.[/QUOTE] not really its not that hard if you got the right equipment and your smart about it its a large startup investment but it works [editline]19th May 2011[/editline] oh ya in arizona for sure but washington hunting is no prob
[QUOTE=yawmwen;29921402]not really its not that hard if you got the right equipment and your smart about it its a large startup investment but it works[/QUOTE] If you can get a bunch of friends together and keep the meat rolling in constantly and share it it's great, but going hunting solo never really yields much. I went with a friend quite a few times last fall and didn't get jack shit
in fact i used to see deer on an almost daily basis in my hometown i could just hit one with my car instead of going through the effort of hunting
[QUOTE=yawmwen;29921417]in fact i used to see deer on an almost daily basis in my hometown i could just hit one with my car instead of going through the effort of hunting[/QUOTE] Not legally allowed to keep a deer you hit with a car, as far as I know
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.