Pages

266 comments

Jump to bottom
1 Alexzander  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 8:12:28am

As far as unhealthy addictive behaviours go, I’d say alcoholism, drug addiction and smoking are more socially stigmatized than obesity.

2 Destro  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 8:19:33am

re: #1 Alexzander

As far as unhealthy addictive behaviours go, I’d say alcoholism, drug addiction and smoking are more socially stigmatized than obesity.

I agree it’s not right to stigmatize such people until you have to sit next to an obese person on a train, bus, plane, etc.

Also, so many Americans suffering from obesity don’t want to hear how destructive the American manufactured food diet has become (high fructose corn syrup, etc).

We had this chef who was making things with obscene amount of butter and sugar, etc and telling us how good it was for us and who cares what the health results are (and she was a Republican booster, also) and then she comes out and says she has diabetes and will now push a diet pill or some such drug for obese people. It’s near criminal.

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:10:52am

OF course it is wrong to assume guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding based on someone’s weight.

However, being fat is not a gender, sexual preference or a race. Being fat is something that is actually bad for the person, and something that a person has the ability to change.

Being fat is a choice.

The kind of mindset that pretends it isn’t deserves to be castigated.

4 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:15:59am

re: #3 Mad Prophet Ludwig

OF course it is wrong to assume guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding based on someone’s weight.

However, being fat is not a gender, sexual preference or a race. Being fat is something that is actually bad for the person, and something that a person has the ability to change.

Being fat is a choice.

The kind of mindset that pretends it isn’t deserves to be castigated.

Some people are genetically pre-disposed to have lower metabolic levels than others. Even if they go on very restrictive food intake, their weight loss slows down. If being thin was easy, everyone would be thin.

Fat people are bombarded constantly with media that tells them how gross and ugly they are.

5 rosiee  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:19:29am

Seeing Americans roll around in Wal-Marts on those carts reminds me of the state of humanity in Wall-E

6 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:42:44am

re: #4 Vicious Babushka

Some people are genetically pre-disposed to have lower metabolic levels than others. Even if they go on very restrictive food intake, their weight loss slows down. If being thin was easy, everyone would be thin.

Fat people are bombarded constantly with media that tells them how gross and ugly they are.

I don’t debate that it is difficult to loose weight, or that some people legitimately have medical issues that prevent them from exercising.

Even so, energy is still conserved. The human body is not a magic thing where the laws of thermodynamics stop happening.

There are way too many fat people who take the comfortable lie, that it must be their metabolism, or their genes or their glands, or a host of other things, because that is an easy lie to believe.

Even for people with low metabolisms, if they burn more than they take in, they will and must loose weight. That is just conservation of energy.

If they aren’t loosing weight, they are simply not actually sticking to their “restrictive” diet (or it was never actually restrictive enough) and sabotaging it by not counting all they are actually eating and fudging on their perception of intake. This is a provable fact because energy is conserved and if they were actually on a diet that took in less than they burnt they would loose weight.

This can be said definitively - because energy is conserved. There is no way around that. Anything else said is a comfortable lie.

7 subterraneanhomesickalien  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 9:58:11am

re: #4 Vicious Babushka

What percentage the morbidly obese population in this country would you figure are members of the genetically predisposed group?

Maybe five percent at most?

At one time I fell into the group that gluttony and sloth turned fat. I weighed 320 pounds when I was 18 years old. Now I weigh 175 pounds. It wasn’t some sort of magic that precipitated this change, it was what would do the same for most likely 99 percent of the obese population in this country. Exercise and calorie reduction. Not one or the other, but both at the same time.

I’m not going to pretend that man the who receives snickers and insulting under the breath comments because he has to use two chairs, because his 500 pound ass won’t fit in one, at the Golden Corral buffet, who was born 6 pounds and 2 ounces, not 15 pounds and 7 ounces is the same as a black man born in Alabama in the pre-civil rights era, or a homosexual, jew or any other minority group who were born with whatever trait that receives the stigma they are afflicted by.

8 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:03:02am

re: #4 Vicious Babushka

Some people are genetically pre-disposed to have lower metabolic levels than others. Even if they go on very restrictive food intake, their weight loss slows down. If being thin was easy, everyone would be thin.

Fat people are bombarded constantly with media that tells them how gross and ugly they are.

My grandmother would have been classified as obese based on her height and weight. She was one who ate very healthy, good portions, no desserts and chips and all that junk, yet she never lost any weight. She said that when she caught hepatitis A from my baby brother, she became very ill for a couple of months and simply could not eat more than a spoonful or two. She figured at least something good would come of it, that she’d at last lose some weight. She was very disappointed to find she lost nothing. It wasn’t until she was 90 years old and got cancer that she lost weight.

9 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:08:30am

re: #8 Sionainn

I am not critiquing or saying anything negative about your grandmother. If she had Hep A, and could only eat very little, she probably also had much lower activity. She may have been eating less, but she was also burning less. Also, once she could eat again, she probably - and quite understandably - enjoyed things she couldn’t before a bit more than before.

There is no magic person whose body runs on almost no calories and outputs the same power.

10 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:09:13am

Let’s see what science has to say:

[…]

Endocrine disruptors are a class of chemicals that mimic hormones and therefore confuse the body. Initially, they provoked concern because of their links to cancers and the malformation of sex organs. Those concerns continue, but the newest area of research is the impact that they have on fat storage.

Bruce Blumberg, a developmental biologist at the University of California, Irvine, coined the term “obesogen” in a 2006 journal article to refer to chemicals that cause animals to store fat. Initially, this concept was highly controversial among obesity experts, but a growing number of peer-reviewed studies have confirmed his finding and identified some 20 substances as obesogens.

The role of these chemicals has been acknowledged by the presidential task force on childhood obesity, and the National Institutes of Health has become a major funder of research on links between endocrine disruptors and both obesity and diabetes.

Among chemicals identified as obesogens are materials in plastics, canned food, agricultural chemicals, foam cushions and jet fuel. For example, a study in the fall found that triflumizole, a fungicide used on many food crops, like leafy vegetables, causes obesity in mice.

Just this month, a new study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that endocrine disruptors that are sometimes added to PVC plastic cause mice to grow obese and suffer liver problems — and the effect continues with descendants of those mice, generation after generation. [Emphasis added]

[…]

Sure, some people are fat because of voluntary behavior. But you cannot tell by looking which people those are. So stop saying it’s a law of physics and a choice and anything else is a lie.

11 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:20:32am

re: #9 Mad Prophet Ludwig

I am not critiquing or saying anything negative about your grandmother. If she had Hep A, and could only eat very little, she probably also had much lower activity. She may have been eating less, but she was also burning less. Also, once she could eat again, she probably - and quite understandably - enjoyed things she couldn’t before a bit more than before.

There is no magic person whose body runs on almost no calories and outputs the same power.

She didn’t gain weight after she recovered, just didn’t lose any while she was ill. She was extremely disappointed. She had always been larger than her siblings from the time she was a little girl. She worked her butt off and was very active, but it appears that’s just the way she was made. She wasn’t 300 pounds or anything like that, but definitely would be classified as obese based on the charts.

12 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:21:00am

re: #10 wrenchwench

Wrench, energy is always conserved. Your desire to troll me has caused you to cross into GOP levels of scientific stupidity.

Yes there are some - a very few, in comparison to those who use it as a psychological crutch - who have a disposition to store food intake as fat rather than send it down other metabolic pathways first.

Even so, did you ask the other end of the equation about the activity of the mice? How much activity that would burn intake were the mice doing in comparison to the others? Did they have a different diet than the baseline? Did this article go into that?

It is true that if you get a mouse that is disposed to be fat, and you feed it all it wants, and it does not burn more through greater activity, it will get fat. It is also very hard to get the mouse to do aerobics.

This is also true of humans.

So wrench, energy is still conserved. That is what science says. That is what science always says, and if you weren’t so blisteringly intent on trolling me, you would know to never bet against an energy conservation argument.

13 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:21:12am

re: #1 Alexzander

As far as unhealthy addictive behaviours go, I’d say alcoholism, drug addiction and smoking are more socially stigmatized than obesity.

Alcoholism is also glorified, as is cigarette smoking.

14 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:21:41am

re: #10 wrenchwench

Let’s see what science has to say:

Interesting.

15 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:22:24am

re: #12 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Wrench, energy is always conserved. Your desire to troll me has caused you to cross into GOP levels of scientific stupidity.

Yes there are some - a very few, in comparison to those who use it as a psychological crutch - who have a disposition to store food intake as fat rather than send it down other metabolic pathways first.

Even so, did you ask the other end of the equation about the activity of the mice? How much activity that would burn intake were the mice doing in comparison to the others? Did they have a different diet than the baseline? Did this article go into that?

It is true that if you get a mouse that is disposed to be fat, and you feed it all it wants, and it does not burn more through greater activity, it will get fat. It is also very hard to get the mouse to do aerobics.

This is also true of humans.

So wrench, energy is still conserved. That is what science says. That is what science always says. and if you weren’t so blisteringly intent on trolling me, you would know to never bet against an energy conservation argument.

Downding for insulting wrenchwench.

16 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:22:37am

re: #12 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Wrench, energy is always conserved. Your desire to troll me has caused you to cross into GOP levels of scientific stupidity.

She didn’t debate if energy was conserved, so why are you accusing her of doing so? She said you can’t tell, by looking at people, whether they’re genetically predispositioned for fatness or not.

What do you gain by arguing like an asshole? When has it ever served you well? Why can’t you change?

17 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:25:48am

re: #11 Sionainn

She didn’t gain weight after she recovered, just didn’t lose any while she was ill. She was extremely disappointed. She had always been larger than her siblings from the time she was a little girl. She worked her butt off and was very active, but it appears that’s just the way she was made. She wasn’t 300 pounds or anything like that, but definitely would be classified as obese based on the charts.

Fair enough. My own mom is a very similar sort of person. She is (or was) the archetypal short, sweet, plump little Jewish grandma. She also used to be very fond of telling people that she had a low metabolism. She had tried and failed to stick to many diets.

She’s fine, but a few years back, she had a cancer scare. She really couldn’t eat while waiting for the tests, and tried to keep active to put her mind on other things. She dropped 15 pounds in a month.

She found out she would be ok. But she decided to eat less and keep up the same activity. She is now the other archetype of a Jewish grandma - the thin one with more stamina than her grandkids.

18 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:26:27am

re: #15 Sionainn

Downding for insulting wrenchwench.

Downding for supporting unscientific trolling.

19 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:26:48am

I have two daughters-in-law, the same age, the same height. One is chubby, the other is 90 lbs. soaking wet. The chubby one exercises religiously, eats healthy, and yet she will never look like the 90-lb’er who enjoys desserts and junk and rarely exercises formally.

How do you explain that?

20 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:28:41am

re: #18 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Downding for supporting unscientific trolling.

I can’t believe you are being such an ass to wrenchwench and calling her a troll. Good grief, Ludwig. Get a grip.

21 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:28:44am

re: #18 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Downding for supporting unscientific trolling.

It is apparent that you did not read the article, let alone the scientific information it links to. It is also apparent that you are unfamiliar with the science of human metabolism.

22 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:29:16am

re: #19 Vicious Babushka

I have two daughters-in-law, the same age, the same height. One is chubby, the other is 90 lbs. soaking wet. The chubby one exercises religiously, eats healthy, and yet she will never look like the 90-lb’er who enjoys desserts and junk and rarely exercises formally.

How do you explain that?

According to someone, she’s probably eating on the sly. ////

23 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:30:16am

re: #22 Sionainn

According to someone, she’s probably eating on the sly. ////

So that would also mean the 90-lb. one is puking on the sly?

24 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:31:12am

re: #23 Vicious Babushka

So that would also mean the 90-lb. one is puking on the sly?

It’s only logical.
//

25 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:32:06am

re: #16 Obdicut

She didn’t debate if energy was conserved, so why are you accusing her of doing so? She said you can’t tell, by looking at people, whether they’re genetically predispositioned for fatness or not.

What do you gain by arguing like an asshole? When has it ever served you well? Why can’t you change?

Well, if you actually read what she was saying - i.e. That this is what science is, with the intent of leading to a false conclusion - when I am writing energy conservation, which is always true - it sort of follows.

The only assholes here are her for trolling with anti-science, and you for piling on.

26 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:32:40am

re: #20 Sionainn

Are can’t believe you are defending the idea that energy isn’t conserved!

27 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:37:19am

re: #26 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Are can’t believe you are defending the idea that energy isn’t conserved!

I can’t believe that you didn’t spend one second going to any of the links in the article she posted before you accused her of trolling.

28 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:38:10am

re: #26 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Are can’t believe you are defending the idea that energy isn’t conserved!

Oh, and I never defended the idea that energy isn’t conserved. But, please, continue making shit up.

29 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:39:10am

re: #19 Vicious Babushka

I have two daughters-in-law, the same age, the same height. One is chubby, the other is 90 lbs. soaking wet. The chubby one exercises religiously, eats healthy, and yet she will never look like the 90-lb’er who enjoys desserts and junk and rarely exercises formally.

How do you explain that?

Yes it is true, that some people don’t store fat as easily as others. Faster metabolism is a misnomer - unless she is always running a high fever. It is more likely though that your heavier daughter is eating more than you perceive and less active than you perceive. It is also more likely that the junk food eating one is more active than you perceive.


There are major differences in weight that come from little things - like taking steps, or even just being the sort to pace rather than sit.
None of that changes the fact that whatever your metabolic rates and dispositions are, if you eat less and burn more you must lose weight.

So if I were the heavier daughter, I would look to what I was actually eating vs how active I actually was. If somehow, I was one for the few, who was just cursed with never burning fat easily - which would have a whole slew of other medical problems (but you aren’t talking about) - I would accept that I just had to work out a little more and actually eat less.

30 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:39:40am

re: #25 Mad Prophet Ludwig

She said:

Sure, some people are fat because of voluntary behavior. But you cannot tell by looking which people those are. So stop saying it’s a law of physics and a choice and anything else is a lie.

That is completely correct. She is not denying that energy is conserved. Obviously in order to create fat you have to have sufficient calorific intake to create the fat, but the variance between people of how much calorific intake will become fat and how much will be turned into other things. Those other things are also highly necessary for, you know, life, so if you happen to be one of those people whose body misprograms and over-allocates fat production, then it is very, very, very difficult to not carry extra fat and be sufficiently nourished at the same time.

My mother is one of those people who basically cannot gain weight. She literally eats butter. No matter how she varies her diet, her weight remains nearly constant, with a very low body-fat percentage. She gets very little exercise and never has gotten much. I recently was able to drop the weight that I carried for way too long, and I have had to severely restrict my diet and work out for an hour every day at the lovely 92nd street Y— a luxury many people don’t have.

The amount of effort that individuals need in order to contain their weight can vary between nothing at all to enormous, and the body can be genetically or phenotypically misprogrammed to create far more fat than is necessary.

That is the science. Trying to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a flat rule to figure out the intricacies of human metabolism, digestion, and fat creation is silly.

31 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:42:51am

re: #21 wrenchwench

re: #20 Sionainn

re: #30 Obdicut

Oh what a bunch of crap. It is this kind of BS that makes this blog silly.

If you eat less and burn more, you will loose weight. This is not debatable.

This is energy conservation.

I am not playing semantics with you idiots.

32 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:43:41am

re: #29 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes it is true, that some people don’t store fat as easily as others. Faster metabolism is a misnomer - unless she is always running a high fever. It is more likely though that your heavier daughter is eating more than you perceive and less active than you perceive. It is also more likely that the junk food eating one is more active than you perceive.

There are major differences in weight that come from little things - like taking steps, or even just being the sort to pace rather than sit.
None of that changes the fact that whatever your metabolic rates and dispositions are, if you eat less and burn more you must lose weight.

So if I were the heavier daughter, I would look to what I was actually eating vs how active I actually was. If somehow, I was one for the few, who was just cursed with never burning fat easily - which would have a whole slew of other medical problems (but you aren’t talking about) - I would accept that I just had to work out a little more and actually eat less.

If you were to take two non-related human beings and totally monitor their food intake and exercise output, making sure they each took in X amount of calories while exercising X set amount of calories, while keeping them locked up in cells I suppose, at the end of the experiment do you think they would both weigh the same?

33 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:43:45am

re: #31 Mad Prophet Ludwig

You and Killgore should form a club of people who are just smarter and better than everyone else here. Then you can argue with each other about which of you is the best.

34 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:44:01am

People are HUMANS not lab rats.

35 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:53:47am

re: #33 Obdicut

Save the crocodile tears and feelings of false oppression. It is very Republican.

Her intent to troll - in a way that flies against energy conservation - was plain. It was plain as day that she was just trolling. What science says is that energy is always conserved. If you actually care about the facts of a thing as opposed to petty primate blog politics, you would note that even if her article is completely correct, it still doesn’t alter the basic conclusion of burn more and eat less. It’s pathetic that you refuse to see that on something so obvious.

It just makes your laughable attempt to pile on just as pathetic and obvious because the supposition is so clearly stupid.

And to what end? Are you manfully staking out your corner of the web to enforce your sense of in and out? Is your real life that empty? Is playing sophomoric word games with the plain meanings and intents of foolish posts really that fulfilling to you?

Pathetic Obdi.

36 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:57:24am

re: #34 Vicious Babushka

People are HUMANS not lab rats.

That’s right and humans have big brains that understand the consequences of their actions.

Short form is this. It may be harder for some to loose weight. It is still a choice to do or not.

37 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:57:29am

re: #31 Mad Prophet Ludwig

re: #20 Sionainn

re: #30 Obdicut

Oh what a bunch of crap. It is this kind of BS that makes this blog silly.

If you eat less and burn more, you will loose weight. This is not debatable.

This is energy conservation.

I am not playing semantics with you idiots.

Of course the only way to for a person to lose weight is to eat less and/or exercise more (preferably both). This is the physics of weight loss, and nobody is calling it into question.

That is also the only relevance of physics to weight loss. In particular, knowing the physics tells one nothing about how easy or hard it will be for someone to lose weight.

Do you really think that overweight people are suffering from some shortage of messaging that their problems are exclusively the result of their bad choices?

I’ll be charitable and assume that you are clueless on this issue, perhaps because neither you nor anyone you know well has actually struggled with a weight loss problem.

You have absolutely no idea how lucky you are that this is not an issue for you.

38 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 10:59:22am

re: #30 Obdicut

That is the science. Trying to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a flat rule to figure out the intricacies of human metabolism, digestion, and fat creation is silly.

This.

Human metabolism is much more complex than a simple input-output system.

There are books and scientific studies about this.

They are not found in the physics section.

39 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:00:12am

re: #35 Mad Prophet Ludwig

You’re weird, dude.

40 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:00:33am

re: #37 EPR-radar

ON the contrary, I got tired of my lifestyle, changed my diet, started slowly by walking more, taking the stairs rather than the elevator more and working up to a three day a week work-out routine.

I lost a lot of weight - 45 lbs.

The point of the physics is that of course you can loose weight and you must if you make the right choices. It is only psychology that makes people fail.

41 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:01:51am

re: #39 Obdicut

You’re weird, dude.

You’re much more charitable than I am. Those are not the words I would have used.

42 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:02:03am

You can take a bunch of lab rats, measure their food intake and their exercise-wheel output and end up with a bunch of rats that all weigh exactly the same.

You can’t do that to a bunch of human beings.

Why do so many people join Weight Watchers, lose some pounds at first, and then struggle and struggle as they eat less and less, exercise more and more and their weight loss flatlines?

43 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:03:16am

BTW it is MUCH MUCH more difficult for women to stay on a weight loss plan than it is for men, women have a tendency to flatline but men rarely do.

44 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:03:22am

re: #38 wrenchwench

No, no in this case it isn’t. End of the day, it is a black box that burns x calories per day. It is true that everyone has a slightly different x. It is also always true that working out more makes x bigger. What goes into your mouth, y calories, is totally controllable.

if y is less than x (consistently and without cheating or self sabotage) you will and must loose weight.

It is that simple, no matter what lies you tell yourself to fell better about still being fat.

45 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:05:33am

re: #44 Mad Prophet Ludwig

No, no in this case it isn’t. End of the day, it is a black box that burns x calories per day. It is true that everyone has a slightly different x. It is also always true that working out more makes x bigger. What goes into your mouth, y calories, is totally controllable.

if y is less than x (consistently and without cheating or self sabotage) you will and must loose weight.

It is that simple, no matter what lies you tell yourself to fell better about still being fat.

I’m not fat. Never have been.

Care to cite the studies you’ve read on human metabolism, or does it come down to anecdote here?

46 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:05:52am

re: #42 Vicious Babushka

re: #43 Vicious Babushka

I am not saying it is easy. However, all of the things you are talking about are psychological. Weight watchers is designed by food companies to string people along and designed so that you will fail. It is a brilliant bit o psychological conditioning that profits from failure.

If you truly stick to a diet and you truly work out more, you will loose weight. The problem is that it is a lifestyle change that requires no excuses about going to the gym and no excuses about having that extra helping.

47 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:08:52am

re: #46 Mad Prophet Ludwig

re: #43 Vicious Babushka

I am not saying it is easy. However, all of the things you are talking about are psychological. Weight watchers is designed by food companies to string people along and designed so that you will fail. It is a brilliant bit o psychological conditioning that profits from failure.

If you truly stick to a diet and you truly work out more, you will loose weight. The problem is that it is a lifestyle change that requires no excuses about going to the gym and no excuses about having that extra helping.

So you’re saying Weight Watchers is a scam, so what “diet” is not a scam? The No Carbs diet? Oprah’s Diet-Of-The Day? The Exercise and then Puke diet? Ludwig’s extra special fat-shaming YOU FATTY FATSO diet?

48 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:09:50am

re: #40 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And therefore, it’s only psychology— and actually, no, definitely not only psychology, also biology, since some people process certain types of food more or less efficiently into fat, and there’s all sorts of other biological things that are important to take into effect, so— it is only psychology and biology that are relevant to talking about obesity.

So you’re totally goddamn obvious statement about the 2nd law of thermodynamics was irrelevant.

The only way to lose weight is by having a calorific deficit. Figuring out how to get a certain individual to that calorific deficit is the challenge.

Also, your analysis of the psychology of it so far amounts to ‘just man up and do it’, which is scientifically shown to be not that useful as a motivator.

Being fat is a choice, as you said. But it is a much more difficult choice to avoid for some people than others. Some people have to expend no effort, at all, on making that choice, and yet we, as a society, treat those people better than people who make hard choices every day in avoiding foods, in forcing themselves to exercise, and yet still struggle with their weight. Many things can interfere with the ability to exercise, such as injuries or other illnesses, and also contribute to obesity. Etc. etc. etc.

That is the point of this: That it is wrong to discriminate against the obese because, given a fat and a skinny individual, they may be exerting the exact same amount of willpower and discipline in regards to food; they may be making the exact same choice. The playing field is not level, and judging people by their weight is foolish, as is thinking you know how hard they’ve worked to combat it.

It is wrong to stigmatize the overweight because it does no good to do so, it is wrong to stigmatize them because, ethically, we have no way of judging the effort they put into fitness.

49 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:11:04am

re: #45 wrenchwench

I’m not fat. Never have been.

Care to cite the studies you’ve read on human metabolism, or does it come down to anecdote here?

Well the study to cite is this thing called Noether’s theorem.

You can look it up, but it is a theorem and not a theory which is to say it is a mathematically proven fact.

Because we expect the laws of nature to be constant through all of time, there is a time translation symmetry. Because of this symmetry, Noether’s theorem tells us that energy is conserved.

Now your body stores energy in the form of fat (among other things). You only have so much energy to spend. If you spend it, it must have come from somewhere. Therefore, you will - no matter what your metabolism is, no matter what other non-sense you point to - eventually burn fat and loose weight if your energy demands are sufficient compared to your intake.

You are actually arguing this with me…

Astonishing.

Do you mean to argue, hey look it is really hard to do, and for some people, with fatty food everywhere, it is even harder… Sure. Fine. The answer is stop eating as much and work out more just the same.

50 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:13:09am

re: #47 Vicious Babushka

So you’re saying Weight Watchers is a scam, so what “diet” is not a scam? The No Carbs diet? Oprah’s Diet-Of-The Day? The Exercise and then Puke diet? Ludwig’s extra special fat-shaming YOU FATTY FATSO diet?

How about the go to a doctor, figure out how much you burn in a day - usually @ 1800 calories for a woman, and eat less than that for a few months while actually increasing your exercise and output. Take the steps, swim, take a long walk, do these alien things called crunches and pushups if you are able to, and oh yes, stop eating as much. Count the calories.

51 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:13:14am

re: #46 Mad Prophet Ludwig

re: #43 Vicious Babushka

If you truly stick to a diet and you truly work out more, you will loose weight. The problem is that it is a lifestyle change that requires no excuses about going to the gym and no excuses about having that extra helping.

And for some people it means cutting out far more than for other people, and for some people it requires far more exercise than other people. It is not an equal distribution of ability, and so it is really stupid to stigmatize people for. It is absolutely fine to stigmatize the behaviors you loathe without stigmatizing the people for the attribute. You can stigmatize ramming buckets of KFC down the gullet, you can stigmatize not exercising at all, you can stigmatize not being educated on nutritional content. That’s fine and appropriate, but stigmatizing fat people is silly.

52 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:14:07am

re: #48 Obdicut

Yes it is harder for some.

Doesn’t change a damn thing. Eat less and burn more, you will loose weight.

53 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:14:40am

re: #49 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Well the study to cite is this thing called Noether’s theorem.

You can look it up, but it is a theorem and not a theory which is to say it is a mathematically proven fact.

Because we expect the laws of nature to be constant through all of time, there is a time translation symmetry. Because of this symmetry, Noether’s theorem tells us that energy is conserved.

Now your body stores energy in the form of fat (among other things). You only have so much energy to spend. If you spend it, it must have come from somewhere. Therefore, you will - no matter what your metabolism is, no matter what other non-sense you point to - eventually burn fat and loose weight if your energy demands are sufficient compared to your intake.

You are actually arguing this with me…

Astonishing.

Do you mean to argue, hey look it is really hard to do, and for some people, with fatty food everywhere, it is even harder… Sure. Fine. The answer is stop eating as much and work out more just the same.

You must have missed this part:

on human metabolism

54 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:15:11am

re: #51 Obdicut

It is a much less broad distribution that you are implying and in the end, the answer is still the same.

55 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:15:25am

re: #52 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes it is harder for some.

Doesn’t change a damn thing. Eat less and burn more, you will loose weight.

It does change whether or not stigmatizing people for being fat is ethically defensible, which is the topic of this conversation.

It’s like stigmatizing people for being less intelligent than other people, rather than stigmatizing stupid ideas. And about as useful.

56 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:16:01am

re: #52 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes it is harder for some.

Doesn’t change a damn thing. Eat less and burn more, you will loose weight.

This did not happen to me. 10 years ago I was meticulously keeping a food diary and weighing and measuring, did not exceed 1200 calories a day, at the same time I was RUNNING 5 miles. Yeah I lost some weight at first but then I flatlined. I DID NOT CHEAT I ate less and less.

Then I fell while running and broke my ankle.

57 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:16:06am

It’s lose weight, not loose weight. That’s driving me nuts.

58 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:16:55am

re: #53 wrenchwench

You must have missed this part:

No I didn’t. I just proved that your point is irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter if it is harder for some than others. The answer is still the same, eat less, work out more.

You are just too full of your own nonsense to accept it.

59 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:18:57am

re: #56 Vicious Babushka

And after you fell, your output went way down and the weight came back.

Babushka, I am certain this is how you remember it. I am not trying to be mean to you, but it is physically impossible for a grown woman to run five miles a day - every day, and eat only 1200 calories while not loosing weight.

OK. It is just not possible.

The psychology that makes you thing you were meticulous, and actually ran every day is the same accounting error that made you flat line.

60 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:19:04am

re: #54 Mad Prophet Ludwig

It is a much less broad distribution that you are implying

I am saying that it varies, and it is not a rare genetic freak of variance, but casually observable that some people can eat very large amounts and not gain weight, and other people eat moderately and gain weight. This is something I’ve personally observed many times, and I think most people have as well. That I know two people— my mother, and my friend Jimmy— who can literally eat as much as they want* over a long period of time while taking no exercise, and not gain weight— is wildly statistically improbable if this is actually something that’s super-rare.


* and no, this doesn’t mean ‘infinity’, it means that Jimmy had, for breakfast every day, three bowls of captain crunch with whole milk. Then for lunch he had one of a large cheeseburger with french fries and a large cococola from the campus diner, which had very larger (1/3rd pound) burgers, or a friend chicken sandwich and french fries with melted cheese over it for lunch. For dinner, he ate 1/2 pound of past with canned meat sauce on it, normally about 1/2 of the entire can of sauce. He usually, but not always, had a milkshake in the afternoon. Throughout the day, he ate about fifteen packages of Nerds candy, and whenever there was more available free food— someone bought donuts, etc— he at them. This does not take into account his beer consumption; that varied wildly, but during some periods it was three beers per night. He worked as a programmer and was completely sedentary and got no exercise whatsoever beyond lifting weights three times a week for half an hour, which is a very low-calorific intensity workout.

61 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:19:25am

re: #57 Sionainn

It’s lose weight, not loose weight. That’s driving me nuts.

Sorry for that.

62 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:19:45am

re: #57 Sionainn

It’s lose weight, not loose weight. That’s driving me nuts.

wow you are correct.

63 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:20:00am

re: #59 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And after you fell, your output went way down and the weight came back.

Babushka, I am certain this is how you remember it. I am not trying to be mean to you, but it is physically impossible for a grown woman to run five miles a day - every day, and eat only 1200 calories while not loosing weight.

OK. It is just not possible.

The psychology that makes you thing you were meticulous, and actually ran every day is the same accounting error that made you flat line.

Now you are just being an ass.

64 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:20:50am

re: #59 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And after you fell, your output went way down and the weight came back.

Babushka, I am certain this is how you remember it. I am not trying to be mean to you, but it is physically impossible for a grown woman to run five miles a day - every day, and eat only 1200 calories while not loosing weight.

OK. It is just not possible.

The psychology that makes you thing you were meticulous, and actually ran every day is the same accounting error that made you flat line.

I DID RUN EVERY DAY THE SAME ROUTE.

65 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:22:31am

re: #58 Mad Prophet Ludwig

No I didn’t. I just proved that your point is irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter if it is harder for some than others. The answer is still the same, eat less, work out more.

You are just too full of your own nonsense to accept it.

You did not prove anything, except that you think human metabolism is a simple matter of physics.

And that you lack human compassion.

I don’t care about anonymous you insulting anonymous me. I care that you think you can judge all overweight humans as slothful liars. I care about fat people as much as I care about most people. I care about you, in a way, but you make it difficult, because you insult much of the rest of humanity that I care about.

re: #59 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And after you fell, your output went way down and the weight came back.

Babushka, I am certain this is how you remember it. I am not trying to be mean to you, but it is physically impossible for a grown woman to run five miles a day - every day, and eat only 1200 calories while not loosing weight.

OK. It is just not possible.

The psychology that makes you thing you were meticulous, and actually ran every day is the same accounting error that made you flat line.

You are wrong. You are rejecting the science of human metabolism.

66 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:30:42am

re: #63 Vicious Babushka

re: #64 Vicious Babushka

Then you weren’t counting the calories as meticulously as you think.

What you wrote is not physically possible.

I repeat not possible.

A grown woman can not run five miles every day, do everything else that you would do in a day from work- to house work, eat only 1200 calories a day and not lose weight.

That is a crash starvation diet. In a matter of months, that routine would reduce someone into a concentration camp picture.

That is just the way it is. So unless the weight you flatlined at was 70 lbs, I don’t buy it. And in any case, you would have been so emaciated that you wouldn’t have been physically capable of running those miles.

So no, Babushka, what likely happened was any number of sabotages. For instance, did you diet all during the week, and run during the week, but eat all kinds of very fatty food, and sit around all Shabbos? Did you maybe not diet as much as you thought you did and it was actually more like 1500 - 2000 calories during any given week with 3000 on Friday night?

Did you factor that in?

67 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:38:56am

re: #65 wrenchwench

You reject basic physics in order to promote the “science of human metabolism.” So tell me, when you got your Ph.D. in biochemistry, what new perpetual motion machine did you discover so that that the human body doesn’t obey energy conservation? Because that is what you are arguing. You are just too full of yourself (and scientifically illiterate) to imagine otherwise.

As to compassion, no, the truth is compassion.

Compassion is saying that it is possible, if you want to, no matter what your metabolism is. That is the truth. Everyone wants a diet plan - i.e. the process to be easy. It isn’t. Compassion is telling people that no it is not easy to get in shape once you have let yourself go. BUT… like all worthwhile things, the struggle is winnable and worth it.

You are making excuses for weakness and calling it compassion while condemning people to a psychology of learned helplessness and a more rapidly failing body.

68 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:39:06am

re: #66 Mad Prophet Ludwig

What you wrote is not physically possible.

It is possible.

Go read up on the subject.

69 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:43:43am

re: #67 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Now who sounds like a Republican?

70 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:54:52am

It is odd that repeating society’s default message that fat people are the way they are because they are being lazy pigs is viewed as some form of useful truth-telling.

The truth is that the only way for a person to lose weight is to eat less and/or exercise more.

Further editorializing on the bare bones of this truth tends to become offensive remarkably quickly.

71 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 11:58:51am

re: #68 wrenchwench

It is possible.

Go read up on the subject.

According to a cited paper in Wiki, a study in Scotland found the lowest daily basal calorific need at 1027 kcal per day. That was a study of 150 adults. Running five miles should burn quite a few calories, but the more you do it the more efficient you get at it so your calorific intake drops. So I’d say it’s barely possible to be consuming 1200 calories and running five miles a day while flatlining on weight loss, assuming that Alouette is farther along the scale of variation than the 1027 kcal guy and she got efficient at running those five miles.

72 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:00:08pm

re: #70 EPR-radar

It is odd that repeating society’s default message that fat people are the way they are because they are being lazy pigs is viewed as some form of useful truth-telling.

The truth is that the only way for a person to lose weight is to eat less and/or exercise more.

Further editorializing on the bare bones of this truth tends to become offensive remarkably quickly.

And it doesn’t mean that fat people should be stigmatized. If we want to stigmatize lack of exercise or laziness, that’s fine. That is arguably useful. But stigmatizing the result and not the process isn’t useful or ethically defensible.

73 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:03:25pm

re: #68 wrenchwench

It is possible.

Go read up on the subject.

Did you ever hear of the Battan Death March or Concentration camps? Did you ever see photos the skin and bones that sort of thing leaves?

A grown woman who truly only took in 1200 calories a day would burn almost that amount in the five mile run. She then burns energy for the rest of the day doing everything else in addition to the energy it takes just to keep her body alive and her brain thinking. Since Babushka, Thank GOD, is not a walking corpse, we can conclude from the basic scientific technique of looking at obvious data, she did not actually, undergo such a crash diet.

So let’s use [Link: www.health-calc.com…]

If she were burning 3000 cals a day, with a 1200 cal a day input, this calculator says she would loose 16 lbs a month. You get this just from energy calculation.

A year at that rate would leave a walking corpse even if she started at over 200 lbs.

Now admittedly, this calculator is only a first order sort of thing and doesn’t take a number of other factors into account, but you can’t beat basic metabolic needs. The energy has to come from somewhere.

So there is your science, and you are so stupid and full of yourself that you deny it. Don’t get pissy about it. Accept that you are wrong and stop being a moron.

74 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:06:22pm

re: #70 EPR-radar

It is odd that repeating society’s default message that fat people are the way they are because they are being lazy pigs is viewed as some form of useful truth-telling.

The truth is that the only way for a person to lose weight is to eat less and/or exercise more.

Further editorializing on the bare bones of this truth tends to become offensive remarkably quickly.

But I am not calling any-body a lazy pig. I am calling wrench a trolling moron because she is, but I am not calling any overweight person lazy. I am very sensitive to the psychological barriers we put in our own ways and it is obvious that if there were a different general diet in America people wouldn’t be able to eat in the ways that make them obese.

You are putting all of that negativity into my words.

I am saying, take comfort in the physics. You really can do it.

75 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:10:20pm

re: #73 Mad Prophet Ludwig

A grown woman who truly only took in 1200 calories a day would burn almost that amount in the five mile run.

Um. no. If you’re doing a jog-run and you’re the average, like, 150 pound woman, you’re going to burn about 450* or so calories running 5 miles at ten minutes per mile. As you do that over weeks, you’ll get more efficient at it and your calorific usage during that will slow down.

I’d agree that it’s very improbable that someone could run 5 miles a day, eat only 1200 calories and not be dropping weight, but it is not the impossibility you’re suggesting and you’re starting to get your facts seriously wrong. Maybe you were thinking she was sprinting the whole 5 miles.

Mayo cites it as 600 calories for 160 pounds, so I’m estimating a little low according to them. But just a little.

[Link: www.mayoclinic.com…]

76 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:14:10pm

re: #75 Obdicut

Um. no. If you’re doing a jog-run and you’re the average, like, 150 pound woman, you’re going to burn about 450 or so calories running 5 miles at ten minutes per mile. As you do that over weeks, you’ll get more efficient at it and your calorific usage during that will slow down.

I’d agree that it’s very improbable that someone could run 5 miles a day, eat only 1200 calories and not be dropping weight, but it is not the impossibility you’re suggesting and you’re starting to get your facts seriously wrong. Maybe you were thinking she was sprinting the whole 5 miles.

I did not run the entire 5 miles. I would sprint, then jog, then walk, then sprint again. All this time I followed a food plan, kept a diary where I wrote everything down. It was very OCD.

I lost 25 lbs and THEN STOPPED. I would lose a lb. and gain it back the next week. Back and forth, this went on for almost a year.

Then I fell while running, broke my ankle and everything went to shit.

77 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:20:00pm

re: #76 Vicious Babushka

Yeah, that makes sense. I was using slow jog as an estimate for calorific usage. If you were combination jog and walking, then you probably were burning about 400 calories doing it at the start, but that dropped off as you got more efficient. It’s also entirely possible that though you measured and ate that those calorie counts were off for whatever reason and you had slightly more than 1200 calories, but it still could be very close to 1200. It’d mean that you probably have very unusually small amounts of lean muscle, and that you’re, well, very short.

78 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:20:48pm

re: #75 Obdicut

Wow, Obdi, ok, this is what you get for quibbling with math you haven’t looked at.

Your metabolism does not suddenly get more efficient by the amounts you are implicitly talking about. You don’t get a new engine upgrade.

So you are correct - and I admitted that this was a first order thing that didn’t take a lot of factors into account.

So let’s look more closely.

1200 calories for a five mile run even jogging, is a little generous for a five mile run.

[Link: www.nutristrategy.com…]

According to this, a 155 lb person running at a slow jog, 5 mph, would burn 563 calories. It would be more for a heavier person for obvious reasons (or at least obvious to those who understand things like kinetic energy, acceleration and momentum, unlike apparently you and wrench).

So that would be 2815 cals burnt by a leisurely 5 mph, 5 mile jog.

Assuming that was the rate she burnt at, and her starting weight was 155 and your Scottish paper are correct, then her daily metabolic needs would be 3815 cals per day.

That has her losing almost 24 lbs a month.

From a starting weight of 155 that has her a walking corpse in three months.

If she was at 200, then 6 months.

Dumbass.

79 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:22:35pm

Yeah, I am very short and according to the calorie charts for “How Much You Should Eat Based On Your Height & Ideal Weight” I should have been eating 1200 calories or less.

I think it is 10-12 calories for each lb of goal weight.

80 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:24:12pm

re: #76 Vicious Babushka

I did not run the entire 5 miles. I would sprint, then jog, then walk, then sprint again. All this time I followed a food plan, kept a diary where I wrote everything down. It was very OCD.

I lost 25 lbs and THEN STOPPED. I would lose a lb. and gain it back the next week. Back and forth, this went on for almost a year.

Then I fell while running, broke my ankle and everything went to shit.

That’s great, but this is the psychology that prevents people from losing weight. You, in your mind had yourself running for 5 miles while eating only 1200 calories. I don’t know what your starting weight, but look at the previous post with the numbers to Obdicut.

A combination of running walking and jogging comes out to about 5 mph don’t you think?

I swear I am not trying to be mean to you.

The only way I lost weight was by no longer telling myself comforting lies.

You did not eat as little as you think you did, and you did run as much as you thought you did.

81 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:24:22pm

re: #78 Mad Prophet Ludwig

According to this, a 155 lb person running at a slow jog, 5 mph, would burn 563 calories. It would be more for a heavier person for obvious reasons (or at least obvious to those who understand things like kinetic energy, acceleration and momentum, unlike apparently you and wrench).

So that would be 2815 cals burnt by a leisurely 5 mph, 5 mile jog.

Where are you getting the 2815 calories burned by a leisurely 5 mph jog? I must have missed that part.

82 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:25:58pm

re: #81 Obdicut

Where are you getting the 2815 calories burned by a leisurely 5 mph jog? I must have missed that part.

See the chart in the link.

83 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:27:17pm

re: #82 Mad Prophet Ludwig

See the chart in the link.

The chart on the link says that a 155 pound person, what you’re asserting as her starting weight, would burn 563 calories on a 5 mile run.

Where are you getting the 2815 calories burned by a leisurely 5 mph jog? I must have missed that part.

84 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:31:13pm

re: #74 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Overweight people are not stupid. We know that we face significant health issues. Long before the health issues usually kick in, we face enormous amounts of social stigma. Do you have any idea what it is like growing up as one of the “fat kids”?

To approach this in a brutally reductionist way by saying that it all comes down to conservation of energy and a simple choice to be fat is basically an insult.

Who would voluntarily choose the wonderful opportunities mentioned above? Nobody.

85 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:42:17pm

re: #83 Obdicut

The chart on the link says that a 155 pound person, what you’re asserting as her starting weight, would burn 563 calories on a 5 mile run.

Where are you getting the 2815 calories burned by a leisurely 5 mph jog? I must have missed that part.

You are right, I misread the chart, which is given in calories per hour.

I just double checked the numbers on the chart with two other running-calories calculators. The all are about 560 -570 cals burnt for 1 hour of 5 mph running.

It still does not change the main argument.

Assume that Babushka is correct that she because of her height needs a 1200 cal diet.

1200 + 563 is 1763

If she were only taking in 1200 cals,

That other calculator still has her getting to under 100 lbs in less than a year and down to dangerously thin in just over a year - assuming that she stated at 155.

Also a combination of walk run jog producing a 12 minute mile sounds right. IF she were pushing herself the calorie output could have doubled or even tripled.

So let’s take her at her word, she started out ocd, actually did keep it to 1200 a day - even Shabbos meals, and did 5 miles of walk run jog every day, she would have lost about 25 lbs in 5 months before quitting.

And also a 1200 calorie a day diet is only appropriate for very small people.

An average sized adult needs about 2000 cals a day.

For 1200 to be correct Babushka must be significantly under 5 foot, like 4’9 or 4’10 at the max.

If a 5’8” man were doing a 5 mile run and a 1200 cal diet per day, he would get to skin and bones in 4 months by these calculators.

86 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:45:29pm

re: #82 Mad Prophet Ludwig

See the chart in the link.

From right above that chart:

Calories burned during exercise is affected by body weight, intensity of workout, conditioning level and metabolism.

What’s that last word there? Why does it have anything to do with how many calories are burned?

87 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:48:11pm

re: #84 EPR-radar

Overweight people are not stupid. We know that we face significant health issues. Long before the health issues usually kick in, we face enormous amounts of social stigma. Do you have any idea what it is like growing up as one of the “fat kids”?

To approach this in a brutally reductionist way by saying that it all comes down to conservation of energy and a simple choice to be fat is basically an insult.

Who would voluntarily choose the wonderful opportunities mentioned above? Nobody.

Well lets see, me and my mom, and everyone who has successfully lost weight chose to change their lifestyle and lost the weight. It is not insulting. It is a choice. It is empowering to know it is a choice. It is empowering that it is your choice.

88 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:48:59pm

re: #86 wrenchwench

From right above that chart:

What’s that last word there? Why does it have anything to do with how many calories are burned?

OH noes… and what does metabolism mean - but the rate at which energy is burnt by the body!

Dumbass.

89 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:55:25pm

...

90 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 12:56:57pm

re: #88 Mad Prophet Ludwig

OH noes… and what does metabolism mean - but the rate at which energy is burnt by the body!

Dumbass.

You mean, it could be a different rate for two people who weigh the same and exercise at the same intensity?

91 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:04:01pm

re: #90 wrenchwench

You mean, it could be a different rate for two people who weigh the same and exercise at the same intensity?

Well, no…. That is what energy conservation means. As soon as you say the same intensity, you mean they are spending the same energy, and energy has to come from somewhere.

What you are struggling to say in your limited way is that different people preferentially store fat rather than metabolizing it and that different people because of their size, mass and other physical constraints, will get more or less out of an hours jog at the same speed.

But then again, it takes a lot less energy to get a 5’0 110 lb woman up to 7 mph than it does for a 6’4” 270 lb man. That is that energy conservation thing, even if they are both running at the same speed for the same time.

So would you believe that the bigger guy burns a lot more!

Go figure!

Dumbass.

92 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:04:05pm

re: #85 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Dude, you’re on a subject that isn’t your scientific area, making grandiose pronouncements. You mocked me for not doing the math while making a colossal failure of the math itself. And no matter what, everything you say to try to prove this point is irrelevant, because it’s still true that stigmatizing fat people isn’t either practically or ethically defensible.

It is perfectly defensible to stigmatize overeating and lack of exercise. Why not do that instead?

93 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:06:38pm

re: #91 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Nice of you to catch up.

94 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:06:45pm

re: #91 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Well, no…. That is what energy conservation means. As soon as you say the same intensity, you mean they are spending the same energy, and energy has to come from somewhere.

Then why did they include it as a factor, along with weight and intensity? Is it meaningless?

95 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:21:01pm

re: #93 Obdicut

Nice of you to catch up.

Don’t be an ass.

I have never denied that outliers exist. Further, Babuska has said she is short, but to have 1200 cal a day make any sense at all she has to be tiny. Further as originally presented, if she had actually ran 5 miles a day, not walk run jog, she would have been doing say 7 or 8 mph and burning at a rate that would have had her a walking corpse in a short time.

Look at it from the other end, little tiny female Olympic runners end up eating whole chickens and pounds of pasta per meal.

If they didn’t they would die.

This is not a grandiose statement. This is energy conservation.

She deluded herself with a false claim.

Energy conservation doesn’t go away. There is no metabolism faerie that makes it go away. If you eat less and work out more you will lose weight. Period. If you lie to yourself about how much less you are actually eating and how much more you are actually working out, you will not lose the weight and set yourself up for a cycle of defeat and depression.

All the talk of different metabolisms do not change those facts.

Your smug dickishness does not change those facts.

Your idea that somehow physics is avoidable - implicitly argued by you does not change those facts.

Notice that once we got the correct facts about Babushka - really tiny, and walk/run jog/ her experience was pretty much exactly what the numbers would indicate?

Do you realize that in that post, once we got the correct info, you were proven wrong?

Of course, god help you. It is just hyperoble and grandious statement… and whatever other simpering sycophancy you care to peddle about the core ways the universe actually works. Who cares what is actually true.

True doesn’t help you troll.

Jackass.

96 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:22:26pm

re: #95 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Don’t be an ass.

Jackass.

Why don’t you take your own advice?

97 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:24:56pm

Since truth is compassion, let’s take a look at some truth from this thread.

Insults by LVQ aimed directly at wrenchwench, or indirectly by way of insulting all the participants of this discussion and/or members of LGF in general:

#12 - Your desire to troll me has caused you to cross into GOP levels of scientific stupidity.

#25 - The only assholes here are her for trolling with anti-science, and you for piling on.

#31 - Oh what a bunch of crap. It is this kind of BS that makes this blog silly.

#31 - I am not playing semantics with you idiots.

#35 - Her intent to troll - in a way that flies against energy conservation - was plain. It was plain as day that she was just trolling.

#58 - You are just too full of your own nonsense to accept it.

#73 - So there is your science, and you are so stupid and full of yourself that you deny it. Don’t get pissy about it. Accept that you are wrong and stop being a moron.

#88 - Dumbass.

#91 - Dumbass.

#95 - Jackass.

Insults by wrenchwench aimed directly at LVQ:

#65 - ….you lack human compassion.

#69 - Now who sounds like a Republican?

Since wrenchwench is too polite to do so, I’m going to give you another helping of truth, Ludwig: You’re being piled on for being an abusive, overbearing, narcissistic prick of the first magnitude, NOT because of your science.

I rue the day I ever accorded you any respect. You are a mean, tiny, pathetic little man and you make me sick.

Now go ahead and spew to your black little heart’s content as that was the last time I’ll ever lower myself to addressing you directly.

98 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:28:54pm

re: #97 CuriousLurker

Thank Gad for Preview and Delete, and apologies for the two that got through.

99 Quant  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:29:34pm

re: #56 Vicious Babushka

I came across this article a while ago, which might be one possible explanation of why your weight loss plateaued.

One of the key underlying problems is that when people lose weight, their energy expenditure does not simply fall to that of the energy expenditure of a person ‘naturally’ at that lower weight - it drops to levels far greater than expected.

In a large series of carefully conducted energy balance studies in humans, Leibel examined the impact of weight loss on energy expenditure, energy intake, neuroendocrine function, autonomic physiology, metabolism and brain imaging.

Whereas a short-term increase in body weight by 10 % results in a transient increase in energy expenditure, this returns to baseline, when the weight is lost. This means that weight-loss per se does not reduce energy expenditure.

On the other hand, a 10% drop in body weight immediately reduces energy expenditure by as much as 20%.

Interestingly, this fall in energy expenditure is not simply due to a fall in metabolic rate, but largely due to a decline in activity expenditure. This means that the body ’saves’ energy not simply by turning down the furnace, but by becoming substantially more ‘fuel efficient’ during activity. In other words, someone who loses weight, will burn substantially fewer calories for a given amount of exercise than for the same amount of exercise performed before weight loss.

Much of this increase in ‘muscle efficiency’ can be attributed to the remarkable fall in the fat tissue-derived hormone leptin that occurs with weight loss.

OK, back to lurking and enjoying reading LGF.

100 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:31:03pm

re: #99 Quant

I came across this article a while ago, which might be one possible explanation of why your weight loss plateaued.

OK, back to lurking and enjoying reading LGF.

SUMMARY: FAT PEOPLE ARE FUCKED.

101 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:31:07pm

re: #98 wrenchwench

Thank Gad for Preview and Delete, and apologies for the two that got through.

Not. You didn’t give me much to work with, heh. They barely qualified as insults, comparatively speaking.

102 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:33:44pm

re: #97 CuriousLurker

Oh… ok

How about this, I don’t care for the little political games of your clique that will deny even the most basic truths. Those that would actually be helpful to people. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you are arguing that somehow you won’t lose weight if you eat less and exercise more. Can you ponder for a minute how mind-numbingly stupid that is?

So last try at the reality…

If you want to lose weight you have to accept the facts of life and not self sabotage. The way past the psychology of defeat is in the purity of numbers. It is not that you just can’t lose the weight. It is never that.
Here is some proof… if you give anyone a month or two on a starvation diet - I mean an actual starvation diet like in times of famine and war - they will get dangerously thin - if not die. Countless photos show this. Energy conservation demands this.

That is just life. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

It is not impossible to lose the weight. If you don’t eat you will surely lose the weight.

But you would rather lie about the most obvious facts in order to troll. Why? What purpose does it serve?

And no, Wrench comes out trolling like she always does and Obdi comes along for the ride. Now that is silly and pathetic but also the case. And to what end? Oh now you come along for the ride…

Do you have any idea how pathetic you are being?

103 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:36:53pm

re: #102 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Oh… ok

How about this, I don’t care for the little political games of your clique that will deny even the most basic truths that would actually be helpful to people out of spite. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound when you are arguing that somehow you won’t lose weight if you eat ess and exercise more. Can you ponder for a minute how mind-numblingly stupid that is?

So last try at the reality…

If you want to lose weight you have to accept the facts of life and not self sabotage. The way past the psychology of defeat is in the purity of numbers. It is not that you just can’t lose the weight. It is never that.
Here is some proof… if you give anyone a month or two on a starvation diet - I mean an actual starvation diet like in times of famine and war - they will get dangerously thin - if not die. Countless photos show this. Energy conservation demands this.

That is just life. Everyone knows this. Everyone.

It is not impossible to lose the weight. If you don’t eat you will surely lose the weight.

But you would rather lie about the most obvious facts in order to troll. Why? What purpose does it serve?

And no, Wrench comes out trolling like she always does and Obdi comes along for the ride. Now that is silly and pathetic but also the case. And to what end? Oh now you come along for the ride…

Do you have any idea how pathetic you are being?

The fact of the matter is that no one has argued that one won’t lose weight if they eat less and exercise more.

104 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:41:24pm

re: #103 Sionainn

The fact of the matter is that no one has argued that one won’t lose weight if they eat less and exercise more.

Really, I see a bunch of excuses about metabolism and Babushka just posted some nonsense that fat people are just fucked.

Wrench’s first post in response to the obvious truth of energy conservation, was about what “the science says.” And a bunch of patently misleading and incorrect crap that would lead one away from taht conclusion.

And why would wrench do it?

Look at how silly this is. It is insane.

She has a pattern of concern trolling. That is her thing. Of course that was what she was doing. Then along comes Obdi with concern trolling. Then they whine when the facts prove them wrong. I am apparently oppressing them with energy conservation… Yes, yes I’m so mean.

This is so stupid.

Why would you even be a part of such stupid primate politics?

This is dumb to the core.

105 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:42:11pm

re: #99 Quant

I came across this article a while ago, which might be one possible explanation of why your weight loss plateaued.

OK, back to lurking and enjoying reading LGF.

Pffff… what would an MD Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at Columbia University and a Professor of Medicine & Chair in Obesity Research and Management at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada know about the second law of thermodynamics?

/

106 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:44:05pm

re: #104 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Really, I see a bunch of excuses about metabolism and Babushka just posted some nonsense that fat people are just fucked.

Wrench’s first post in response to the obvious truth of energy conservation, was about what “the science says.” And a bunch of patently misleading and incorrect crap that would lead one away from taht conclusion.

And why would wrench do it?

Look at how silly this is. It is insane.

She has a pattern of concern trolling. That is her thing. Of course that was what she was doing. Then along comes Obdi with concern trolling. Then they whine when the facts prove them wrong. I am apparently oppressing them with energy conservation… Yes, yes I’m so mean.

This is so stupid.

Why would you even be a part of such stupid primate politics?

This is dumb to the core.

Please see post #97.

107 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:45:17pm

re: #100 Vicious Babushka

SUMMARY: FAT PEOPLE ARE FUCKED.

And if one is going to go on about how eating less and exercising more is the only game in town for weight loss (which it is), it is only common decency to also acknowledge that the difficulty in executing on this varies so widely from person to person that generalities about the conservation of energy are of no real interest or relevance.

There have been times in my life where my weight was under control. Getting there and staying there as long as I did was by far the hardest thing I’ve ever done (earning a Ph.D. was comparatively trivial).

Human beings have evolved to survive starvation. Among other things, that means that if one sets up a calorie deficit (as is required for weight loss), the body will often respond by reducing the base metabolism rate in an effort to prevent death. Depending on the severity with which these metabolic adjustments kick in, “being fucked” may in fact apply.

108 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:46:38pm

re: #105 wrenchwench

Pffff… what would an MD Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at Columbia University and a Professor of Medicine & Chair in Obesity Research and Management at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada know about the second law of thermodynamics?

/

Yes and if it is a kosher paper, it will also show that once that plateau is reached even more exercise/diet MUST break it.

Yes yes, people can come to an equilibrium. They must. If you think about it, every diet/ exercise routine must.

You will need x calories to be at y weight while burning z calories.

If you intake x and burn z you MUST come to weight y.

WOW so deep. Now I am not saying there is nothing to studying the different mechanisms by which that plateau is reached, but the plateau is not a fixed thing and no sane person would claim it is. Well you are, but you are stupid.

The way you are presenting this is sort of like a psychology paper that predicts that randomly electrically shocking people will cause them to resent you.

109 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:47:08pm

re: #106 Sionainn

Please see post #97.

OK so you are a follower of the clique. Be proud.

110 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:51:37pm

re: #109 Mad Prophet Ludwig

OK so you are a follower of the clique. Be proud.

I don’t “follow” anyone. I do, however, find your incessant name calling of other posters to be quite disgusting and I’ve been calling you out on that, not that it will do any good. Must make you feel like a big man to say such things to others.

111 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:52:11pm

re: #108 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Now I am not saying there is nothing to studying the different mechanisms by which that plateau is reached, but the plateau is not a fixed thing and no sane person would claim it is. Well you are, but you are stupid.

Can you show me what I said that gave you that impression? Not the stupid part, but the ‘plateau is a fixed thing’ part?

112 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:53:49pm

re: #110 Sionainn

I don’t “follow” anyone. I do, however, find your incessant name calling of other posters to be quite disgusting and I’ve been calling you out on that, not that it will do any good. Must make you feel like a big man to say such things to others.

No, actually it doesn’t.

It makes me see just how silly hive minds can be when they would rather defend bullshit for clique’s sake than simply acknowledge even the most obvious truths.

Call bullshit, bullshit or else you are just a differently flavored echo chamber.

The fact is that wrench and obdi were trolling.

The fact is that they did it in a really stupid way.

The fact is that this makes them not so bright.

113 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:55:56pm

re: #112 Mad Prophet Ludwig

No, actually it doesn’t.

It makes me see just how silly hive minds can be when they would rather defend bullshit for clique’s sake than simply acknowledge even the most obvious truths.

Call bullshit, bullshit or else you are just a differently flavored echo chamber.

The fact is that wrench and obdi were trolling.

The fact is that they did it is a really stupid way.

The fact is that this makes them not so bright.

You just keep telling yourself that to justify your poor behavior towards others.

114 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:56:44pm

re: #113 Sionainn

You just keep telling yourself that to justify your poor behavior towards others.

OK I will.

You just keep telling yourself that it is OK to lie in order to fit in with a bunch of web twits.

115 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:57:21pm

re: #114 Mad Prophet Ludwig

OK I will.

You just keep telling yourself that it is OK to lie in order to fit in.

No one lied.

116 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:58:09pm

re: #115 Sionainn

No one lied.

It is a lie to argue that your metabolism can somehow overcome energy conservation. Everyone that ever starved to death is rather proof of that.

117 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 1:59:30pm

…and no one likes a bully.

118 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:01:40pm

Oh, this has been utterly delicious to read.

Now… Everybody needs to calm down, and just accept LVQ as the boy-wonder, genius at everything that he has always proclaimed himself to be, just accept it and look no further for answers, in his perfection, he has answered everything. I know I personally found happiness once I accepted that I am a “slack-jawed, drooling, in-bred heathen” from the south.

re: #97 CuriousLurker

Since truth is compassion, let’s take a look at some truth from this thread.


Since wrenchwench is too polite to do so, I’m going to give you another helping of truth, Ludwig: You’re being piled on for being an abusive, overbearing, narcissistic prick of the first magnitude, NOT because of your science.

I rue the day I ever accorded you any respect. You are a mean, tiny, pathetic little man and you make me sick.

Now go ahead and spew to your black little heart’s content as that was the last time I’ll ever lower myself to addressing you directly.

Amen.

re: #112 Mad Prophet Ludwig

No, actually it doesn’t.

It makes me see just how silly hive minds can be when they would rather defend bullshit for clique’s sake than simply acknowledge even the most obvious truths.

Call bullshit, bullshit or else you are just a differently flavored echo chamber.

The fact is that wrench and obdi were trolling.

The fact is that they did it in a really stupid way.

The fact is that this makes them not so bright.

I didn’t see any trolling; Your “facts” are nothing more than your opinion. It seems to me you, of all people, would understand the difference.

119 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:06:30pm

re: #97 CuriousLurker

I rue the day I ever accorded you any respect. You are a mean, tiny, pathetic little man and you make me sick.

So if I were to whine to Charles about your meanness and clutch my pearls, would that be OK by your lights? Ohhhh… Charles, she is so mean to me…. Please.

Lady, get a grip. The supposition is that everyone can indeed lose weight if they exercise more and eat less. To say otherwise really is aphysical.

Clutch your pearls elsewhere. OK I know full well that you don’t like me. The feeling has become mutual, and yet I manage not to troll you or wrench or Obdi.

You guys on the other hand, are always lurking to jump all over me and clutch your little pearls no matter what - no matter how dumb and divorced from reality you are being when you do it.

So how about you actually live up to your word and don’t talk to me? OK? I really can get by in my life without your input. Should I require your opinion on anything I will be sure to ask you for it. Really.

I mean for the record, it isn’t me being mean. It is how I always respond to stupidity from arrogant snots out to pick a fight like wrench and obdi and you were being. You just really can’t fathom that I don’t care if you like me and refuse to play your silly games.

120 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:07:30pm

re: #117 Sionainn

Yes it is true that energy conservation is a bully across the universe. NO one can escape it… mean mean energy conservation.

121 freetoken  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:09:35pm

re: #31 Mad Prophet Ludwig

If you eat less and burn more, you will loose weight. This is not debatable.

The problem is your phrase “and burn more”.

As others have tried to point out, human metabolism being variable as it is, the idea of “burn” can not be equated with the recreational/competitive use of the word “exercise”. Two individuals standing in the same spot for the same amount of time will actually “burn”, i.e., use, different amounts of energy.

Additionally, and this is one of the thorny issues, the idea of “eating” is both programmed into us as well genetically determined. There are too many variables around what drives people to consume food. The idiosyncrasies of brain chemistry interacting with those of glucose/insulin system means how any individual is driven to eat is too variable for any person’s pat answer to be of help to another. This is why exercise regimes need to be modified to suit each individual.

It is pretty clear from a mountain of studies that Americans tend to be overweight from not only eating more than their ancestors but because we do less physical activity in the day. I attribute this first and foremost to the automobile, but all sorts of machinery in our lives makes this possible.

The phenomenon of “becoming fat” is an evolutionary advantage, as it is demonstrated in many animals where seasonal production of plant sources are noticeable.

When humans “become fat” what is being demonstrated is the adaptation humans have undergone as we have increasingly added plant fruit/seed to our diet over the past couple of million years (accompanied by an increase in our amylase causing genes compared to our great ape cousins.)

What our culture does with regards to beauty and idealism does change easily over time. When I look at my grandparent’s wedding photos I marvel at how different the women (physically) look than compared to today. This difference is even more dramatic compared to earlier centuries.

The idea of “optimum health” is also misleading, as it is becoming clear that there is no single weight that can be said to be ideal for any given height.

I suggest that instead of targeted numbers regarding “fatness” we look at functionality. To me, someone is unacceptably overweight when they lose the ability to do X, Y, or Z functions.

122 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:10:51pm

re: #120 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes it is true that energy conservation is a bully across the universe. NO one can escape it… mean mean energy conservation.

Now, that was a truly stupid statement.

123 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:11:13pm

re: #118 reine.de.tout

So we have reinforcements…

Umm Reine. The argument is that energy is always conserved even with weight loss. Is it your opinion that this is just an opinion?

You unfortunately don’t see that when you write that it is just an opinion, you end up sounding like every stereotype of slack jawed, failed third grade science, Southerner out there. Of course not all Southerners are like that, but arguing against this kinda places you there. You know like that guy from your home state of La. that wants to see humans evolve from e-coli…

124 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:17:33pm

re: #121 freetoken

The problem is your phrase “and burn more”.

As others have tried to point out, human metabolism being variable as it is, the idea of “burn” can not be equated with the recreational/competitive use of the word “exercise”. Two individuals standing in the same spot for the same amount of time will actually “burn”, i.e., use, different amounts of energy.

Additionally, and this is one of the thorny issues, the idea of “eating” is both programmed into us as well genetically determined. There are too many variables around what drives people to consume food. The idiosyncrasies of brain chemistry interacting with those of glucose/insulin system means how any individual is driven to eat is too variable for any person’s pat answer to be of help to another. This is why exercise regimes need to be modified to suit each individual.

It is pretty clear from a mountain of studies that Americans tend to be overweight from not only eating more than their ancestors but because we do less physical activity in the day. I attribute this first and foremost to the automobile, but all sorts of machinery in our lives makes this possible.

The phenomenon of “becoming fat” is an evolutionary advantage, as it is demonstrated in many animals where seasonal production of plant sources are noticeable.

When humans “become fat” what is being demonstrated is the adaptation humans have undergone as we have increasingly added plant fruit/seed to our diet over the past couple of million years (accompanied by an increase in our amylase causing genes compared to our great ape cousins.)

What our culture does with regards to beauty and idealism does change easily over time. When I look at my grandparent’s wedding photos I marvel at how different the women (physically) look than compared to today. This difference is even more dramatic compared to earlier centuries.

The idea of “optimum health” is also misleading, as it is becoming clear that there is no single weight that can be said to be ideal for any given height.

I suggest that instead of targeted numbers regarding “fatness” we look at functionality. To me, someone is unacceptably overweight when they lose the ability to do X, Y, or Z functions.

You are a little late to the game. I was explaining to wrench about different people burning (as in using different amounts of energy) as a function of weight even if they were running at the same rate.

Honestly we don’t disagree about anything at all.

As I said a whole bunch up further in the web of craziness, your metabolism is a black box. It burns x per day and you intake y per day. If y is less than x you must lose weight. THis is an utterly true statement. It can not be argued with by any angle. It implies that different black boxs will have different x. So what?

Now I acknowledge that it is hard to change lifestyle to the extent that one loses the weight. I know from personal experience.

That does not mean it is impossible. It is absolutely false that some metabolism faerie will minimum you out absolutely (and I am assuming weight loss in healthy bounds) - you can always increase x or decrease y, and it is absolutely stupid to turn this into an argument that comes down to learned helplessness.

125 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:18:17pm

re: #123 Mad Prophet Ludwig

So we have reinforcements…

Umm Reine. The argument is that energy is always conserved even with weight loss. Is it your opinion that this is just an opinion?

You unfortunately don’t see that when you write that it is just an opinion, you end up sounding like every stereotype of slack jawed, failed third grade science, Southerner out there. Of course not all Southerners are like that, but arguing against this kinda fits you there. You know like that guy from your home state of La. that wants to see human evolve from e-coli…

LOL.

126 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:20:38pm

re: #125 reine.de.tout

LOL.

In other words, you are wrong and pretty dumb to have come out swinging the way you did.

So is energy conservation just an opinion?

127 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:21:26pm

re: #124 Mad Prophet Ludwig

I was explaining to wrench about different people burning (as in using different amounts of energy) as a function of weight even if they were running at the same rate.

I believe you did not address #94 while you were explaining that to me.

128 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:22:30pm

re: #125 reine.de.tout

LOL.

I hope your daughter is getting well.

129 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:23:35pm

re: #126 Mad Prophet Ludwig

In other words, you are wrong and pretty dumb to have come out swinging the way you did.

So is energy conservation just an opinion?

Your “facts” about Obdi and Wrenchwench that I quoted in my comment. Are you really that dense? And yes, OK OK, since it makes you feel better… I am always wrong. I am always dumb. There. Ego all better, now?

130 reine.de.tout  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:25:22pm

re: #128 wrenchwench

I hope your daughter is getting well.

Oh, yes, thanks!
. I actually think all she wanted was for me to take her to lunch. I must have been drooling too much to realize it.

131 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:27:31pm

re: #127 wrenchwench

I believe you did not address #94 while you were explaining that to me.

Actually this will be entertaining. OK troll,

How does that example (of different masses to get up to the same speed require different energy outputs not fit) and why was it not so obvious so as to be included? I mean, I accept that you are not very bright when you troll, so maybe it would not have been obvious to you, being so painfully dumb when you troll and all, but now that it has been explained, what is still not obvious?

While you are at it,

How is it possible that if a body requires y calories to maintain a weight, and burns x while inputting z in a way that will get to y, how is it possible that y will not be a “plateau” for burning x and eating y?

How?

132 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:29:05pm

re: #124 Mad Prophet Ludwig

As I said a whole bunch up further in the web of craziness, your metabolism is a black box. It burns x per day and you intake y per day. If y is less than x you must lose weight. THis is an utterly true statement. It can not be argued with by any angle. It implies that different black boxs will have different x. So what?

To put a few more facts on the table, it is also true that this x, for a given person, can vary over time because of factors not related to exercise. E.g., dieting can cause a long term reduction in x. The first order effect is simple enough —- the lighter a person is, the less x is (usually). But the BMR rate (i.e., x per pound) can also decrease significantly as a result of dieting.

Yes, it remains true that the laws of physics cannot be violated, and that sufficiently draconian limits on y will eventually prevail to cause further weight loss.

So what. The near total dismissal of the difficulties that may be involved here is starting to remind me of how Republicans reduce all issues relating to coerced pregnancy to the mother’s “convenience” in the abortion wars.

133 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:29:35pm

re: #129 reine.de.tout

Your “facts” about Obdi and Wrenchwench that I quoted in my comment. Are you really that dense? And yes, OK OK, since it makes you feel better… I am always wrong. I am always dumb. There. Ego all better, now?

No you are not always wrong and you are not always dumb. But you said that all I wrote was just my opinion and castigated me for not knowing the difference between fact and opinion.

Since you are now back-tracking it would imply that you understand that energy is indeed conserved, and that it is a fundamental law of nature rather than just my opinion. Good on you! See, you can learn!

134 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:31:59pm

re: #131 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Actually this will be entertaining. OK troll,

How does that example (of different masses to get up to the same speed require different energy outputs not fit) and why was it not so obvious so as to be included? I mean, I accept that you are not very bright when you troll, so maybe it would not have been obvious to you, being so painfully dumb when you troll and all, but now that it has been explained, what is still not obvious?

While you are at it,

How is it possible that if a body requires y calories to maintain a weight, and burns x while inputting z in a way that will get to y, how is it possible that y will not be a “plateau” for burning x and eating y?

How?

That wasn’t the question. The question was, why did they include metabolism as a factor if it’s true that all people of the same weight will burn the same number of calories if they are exercising at the same intensity? It was your link, so I thought you might know.

135 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:38:53pm

re: #132 EPR-radar

To put a few more facts on the table, it is also true that this x, for a given person, can vary over time because of factors not related to exercise. E.g., dieting can cause a long term reduction in x. The first order effect is simple enough —- the lighter a person is, the less x is (usually). But the BMR rate (i.e., x per pound) can also decrease significantly as a result of dieting.

Yes, it remains true that the laws of physics cannot be violated, and that sufficiently draconian limits on y will eventually prevail to cause further weight loss.

So what. The near total dismissal of the difficulties that may be involved here is starting to remind me of how Republicans reduce all issues relating to coerced pregnancy to the mother’s “convenience” in the abortion wars.

Everything you have said is true. Except, you seem to think I am dismissing how hard it is.

I know how hard it is. I did it myself.

I am not denying that there is a lot of psychology there. I am not denying that it is legitimately harder for some than others. However, one’s definition of draconian is part of that psychology. Somehow, someone who has to lose the weight needs to come to the realization that a reasonable diet and regular exercise is not a punishment and not draconian. People fail because it is so easy to fail and because we sabotage ourselves in a billion different ways with a billion excuses.

I was sad so I had to eat… No I didn’t. There was no gun to my head.

I worked out so much - yes for two days then I sort of slacked off, then I ate a lot of stuff, then worked out off and on for a month before giving up.

I counted the calories - actually I fudged the numbers twelve ways till Sunday.

No, if you want to lose weight you must set realistic goals and do them. That is it. What helped me was in knowing I could because I knew it must work eventually because of physics and all.

But back to draconian…

No, actually getting up to work out and not giving myself all the treats I would normally in the forms of really fatty foods and second helpings was not draconian.

Draconian is military life with insufficient rations. You can get to a good weight without that.

136 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:42:42pm

re: #135 Mad Prophet Ludwig

You know how hard it was to do for you. Not how hard it would be for anyone else to do it.

And again:

It is perfectly defensible to stigmatize overeating and lack of exercise. Why not do that instead?

137 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:45:18pm

re: #134 wrenchwench

That wasn’t the question. The question was, why did they include metabolism as a factor if it’s true that all people of the same weight will burn the same number of calories if they are exercising at the same intensity? It was your link, so I thought you might know.

Hmmm because different massed people will of necessity have different caloric needs if only to keep the extra cells alive? Because it takes more energy to get one mass up to the same speed than it does another - in fact it goes as the square of the velocity… because the way you phrased it was either stupid or too obvious to mention? Because you were playing stupid word games when you did it…

I mean are you looking for an admission that different people have different energy needs and that is indeed what metabolism means? OK… that is true - that is part of their x (what they burn) and if x goes up from more work or y (intake goes down) they will lose weight - guaranteed.

What exactly is your issue?

I know this is difficult science and all and that a metabolism faerie might change that in your mind, but you only believe that because you are stupid.

138 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:47:20pm

re: #136 Obdicut

You know how hard it was to do for you. Not how hard it would be for anyone else to do it.

And again:

It is perfectly defensible to stigmatize overeating and lack of exercise. Why not do that instead?

And the classic Obdicut strawman and change of goal posts.

I am not stigmatizing anyone. I am saying that it is possible to do and that they can actually do it. How is that stigmatizing?

139 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 2:54:50pm

re: #138 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And the classic Obdicut strawman and change of goal posts.

I am not stigmatizing anyone. I am saying that it is possible to do and that they can actually do it. How is that stigmatizing?

The subject of the threat is stigmatizing people for being overweight. That’s what we’ve been talking about. It’s not a changing the goalposts to remind you of that. And one of the reasons is that people vary in fat formation, in ability to exercise, and all sorts of other things— without even getting into things like lack of education, diet constrained by circumstances, etc. etc.

Anyway, again, the subject of the thread, right there at the top: stigmatization of the obese.

140 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:04:27pm

re: #139 Obdicut

Oh you are pathetic. What bullshit.

OK, because it amuses me to point out how silly and disingenuous you are, let’s look at my first post (3) on this that started this conversation shall we?

OF course it is wrong to assume guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding based on someone’s weight.

Any harsh words of stigmatization there?

However, being fat is not a gender, sexual preference or a race. Being fat is something that is actually bad for the person, and something that a person has the ability to change.

Being fat is a choice.

Of course that is true - because of energy conservation.

The kind of mindset that pretends it isn’t deserves to be castigated.

So I was criticizing a mindset of learned helplessness, and not actually being overweight.

And then in the very next post (6) I meanly wrote:

I don’t debate that it is difficult to loose weight, or that some people legitimately have medical issues that prevent them from exercising.

Wow, lots of stigma there. What is wrong with you? Obdi, you are pathetic. Really, when you decide to troll, you become a pathetic little clown of a commenter and you have no honesty or intellectual integrity when you do it.

With CL along for the reach around no less.

Pathetic. Your clique is pathetic.

141 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:10:01pm

re: #137 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Hmmm because different massed people will of necessity have different caloric needs if only to keep the extra cells alive? Because it takes more energy to get one mass up to the same speed than it does another - in fact it goes as the square of the velocity… because the way you phrased it was either stupid or too obvious to mention? Because you were playing stupid word games when you did it…

I mean are you looking for an admission that different people have different energy needs and that is indeed what metabolism means? OK… that is true - that is part of their x (what they burn) and if x goes up from more work or y (intake goes down) they will lose weight - guaranteed.

What exactly is your issue?

I know this is difficult science and all and that a metabolism faerie might change that in your mid, but you only believe that because you are stupid.

I don’t want to go all AnneFrance on you and tell you what my IQ is, but I’m not stupid and it doesn’t bother me when you call me that. It reflects on you.

I’ll repeat my first comment:

Sure, some people are fat because of voluntary behavior. But you cannot tell by looking which people those are. So stop saying it’s a law of physics and a choice and anything else is a lie.

That’s my issue. It looks almost like you might be coming around to admitting that it might be even harder for some people to lose weight than it was for you. When you get to that point, maybe you can stop saying that anyone who is fat chooses to be fat. That’s all.

142 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:13:24pm

re: #141 wrenchwench

What? OF course it is harder for some than others to lose weight. That is obvious and I actually said that… in my second post no less - you dumbass.

It doesn’t change a thing about energy conservation.

And I don’t know what your IQ is, but your reading comprehension isn’t there. Try to read before trolling. It will save you embarrassment.

And yes dumb person, being fat is still a choice even if it is hard to lose the weight.

143 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:18:26pm

re: #140 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Being fat is a much easier choice for some than it is for others.

So I was criticizing a mindset of learned helplessness, and not actually being overweight.

It’s not learned helplessness to actually understand this. In fact, it can help people to keep on their exercise and diet goals when they really understand that, for example, they may plateau when cutting down their diet and exercising. That’s one of the reasons it’s good to vary your physical activities, rather than just ‘exercise’.

I don’t debate that it is difficult to loose weight, or that some people legitimately have medical issues that prevent them from exercising.

But that’s not the point. The point is that it is much more difficult for some than it is for others. Not that it’s difficult, but that that difficult is not evenly distributed.

You can continue the personal attacks if you like, by the way, but I just tune them out. They’re meaningless to me.

By framing this in terms of choice, that it’s simply a decision reminds me, as a policy, of abstinence-only. It’s entirely true that abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy and it’s the best way of preventing STDs. While it’s true that everyone can lose weight by changing what they’re currently doing to exercise more and eat less, it ignores the actual human conditions they live in.

Those actual human conditions also mean that intentional weight loss is actually correlated with increased mortality, not decreased mortality.

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…]

[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov…]

Please actually read the papers.

144 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:21:50pm

re: #142 Mad Prophet Ludwig

What? OF course it is harder for some than others to lose weight. That is obvious and I actually said that… in my second post no less - you dumbass.

It doesn’t change a thing about energy conservation.

And I don’t know what your IQ is, but your reading comprehension isn’t there. Try to read before trolling. It will save you embarrassment.

BTW, in your #6, there is an acknowledgement that losing weight is difficult, and a mention that some people can’t exercise for medical reasons.

I don’t see a clear statement of the person to person variation in difficulty.

It is precisely this fact that makes pointing out that everyone is making choices that affect their weight such a vacuous statement.

145 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:22:50pm

re: #143 Obdicut

And yet, whatever their internal x needs are, if they eat less than x, they will lose weight.

What is your problem. You want me to say ti is hard to do… I have already said that a dozen times. No goal post shift for you.

146 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:22:54pm

re: #142 Mad Prophet Ludwig

In your second post you said this:

If they aren’t loosing weight, they are simply not actually sticking to their “restrictive” diet (or it was never actually restrictive enough) and sabotaging it by not counting all they are actually eating and fudging on their perception of intake.

This is not accurate, due to issues that were pointed out above— that losing weight results in increased energy efficiency in a non-linear fashion, so that you can actually need to increase and change the amount of exercise you do and lower the amount you eat after the first step, due to the way that weight loss affects our energy usage and the way exercise effects our energy usage.

147 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:23:30pm

re: #145 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And yet, whatever their internal x needs are, if they eat less than x, they will lose weight.

Which nobody has argued against.

If you think otherwise, cite someone arguing against that point.

If you can’t find anyone arguing against that point, why are you acting as though people are?

148 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:24:30pm

re: #144 EPR-radar

BTW, in your #6, there is an acknowledgement that losing weight is difficult, and a mention that some people can’t exercise for medical reasons.

I don’t see a clear statement of the person to person variation in difficulty.

It is precisely this fact that makes pointing out that everyone is making choices that affect their weight such a vacuous statement.

Dude, whatever your difficulty is, it is still a choice. There is no-one, repeat no one, outside of one in a coma, who has such little daily caloric needs that they won’t lose weight if they exercise enough and eat properly.

149 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:26:38pm

re: #148 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Dude, whatever your difficulty is, it is still a choice. There is no-one, repeat no one, outside of one in a coma, who has such little daily caloric needs that they won’t lose weight if they exercise enough and eat properly.

And there’s nobody who will get an STD if they just remain abstinent from sex, too.

150 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:27:38pm

re: #147 Obdicut

Because wrench was and you were supporting her for hours without clarifying yourself… look at her original post, how it was phrased and what it was in reply to… Or look at poor dumb Reine who considered energy conservation to be just my opinion.

Don’t be a troll. Ohhh I forgot, that is what you do. Sorry, still no goalpost shift you silly troll.

151 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:28:25pm

re: #149 Obdicut

And there’s nobody who will get an STD if they just remain abstinent from sex, too.

And now the troll goes to faulty parallelism. Seriously dude pathetic. I mean freshman dorm debate pathetic.

152 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:30:03pm

re: #151 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And now the troll goes to faulty parallelism. Seriously dude pathetic. I mean freshman dorm debate pathetic.

Instead of asserting that it’s a faulty parallel, demonstrate how it is a faulty parallel.

153 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:30:30pm

Well this has been charming.. but real life calls.

154 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:33:02pm

re: #152 Obdicut

Instead of asserting that it’s a faulty parallel, demonstrate how it is a faulty parallel.

Umm the sex drive is not the same level of compulsion than the drive to not work out… Hmmm….

Nahhh… I can’t believe you are dumb enough to equate sexual abstinence with working out and not eating the same diet.

Life calls. I will let this go at that intense stupidity on your part and let you ponder just how much your desire to “win” has rendered you stupid.

155 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:42:00pm

re: #150 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes, her original post did not lay out an ironclad case, and you can say that everyone is fat through ‘voluntary behavior’ in the same way that anyone who gets pregnant or gets an STD does so through ‘voluntary behavior’. (with the exception of rapes, of course). But you said:

There are way too many fat people who take the comfortable lie, that it must be their metabolism, or their genes or their glands, or a host of other things, because that is an easy lie to believe.

It is always true that genes affect how easy it is for someone to lose weight. Nobody is saying that people have a gene that manufactures fat in the absence of any food-energy. Basically, you began this by attacking a strawman, the idea that there’s this ‘comfortable lie’. In addition to it being a choice, it is also highly environmentally determined, by genes, available food, medical conditions, etc. If you don’t like the abstinence once, then consider the limited field of choice.

My wife, right now, is working back-to-back ten hour days, with the occasional twelve hour day thrown in. She generally gets one day off at the weekend. She has difficulty losing weight even when able to exercise, and is not able to calorie-restrict a lot without getting very fatigued and spacey, as is true for a lot of people. Right now, she’s not able to drop the ten pounds she’d really like to drop, though she is doing a great job of maintaining. She could ‘choose’ to go exercise, but she has to do it in a gym, not in the cold outside air, so that increases the amount of time it’d take her. She doesn’t have time for it in he current schedule. She has lots of co-authors depending on results.

So even in her case, a person who has willpower and will, once she gets back into the gym, lose that weight, it’s not actually an available choice to her, any more than it’s an available choice to people who work two jobs and don’t have time to prepare food at home or don’t have the knowledge to do so.

There are certainly some fat people who just make excuses, which is why I have repeatedly said that stigmatizing the behaviors is perfectly well and good. But pretending that every fat person is simply failing to make the simple choice you’re presenting is fallacious. At best, at absolute best, you’re saying something strictly literally true— that it’s a ‘choice’— but that’s about as useful as it being a choice to be abstinent.

156 Obdicut  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 3:46:16pm

re: #154 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Umm the sex drive is not the same level of compulsion than the drive to not work out… Hmmm….

The drive to eat is actually a pretty big one, yeah. And there’s no drive to not work out, you have to work yourself up to working out. It’s an activity that, perversely, when you’re out of shape is unpleasant, and when you’re in shape is enjoyable. Now that I’m back in fighting trim I love going to the gym, when I was first losing weight I hated it and it made me feel awful.

But at any rate, I’m not claiming that there’s an exact level between them. Just that in both cases you have natural forces— the drive to eat food, which is not only naturally present but bombarded to us in advertising and social cues, and the evolutionary adaptations in the human body which actually work against dieting when you attempt it.

157 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:01:09pm

Work is slow today, so to update from my #97 we’re currently at:

Ludwig: 25 / wrenchwench: 2

Additional insults by LVQ aimed directly at wrenchwench, or indirectly by way of insulting all the participants of this discussion and/or members of LGF in general:

#102 - And no, Wrench comes out trolling like she always does…

#104 - She [wrenchwench] has a pattern of concern trolling.

#108 - Well you are, but you are stupid.

#112 - It makes me see just how silly hive minds can be when they would rather defend bullshit for clique’s sake than simply acknowledge even the most obvious truths.

#112 - The fact is that wrench and obdi were trolling.

#112 - The fact is that this makes them not so bright.

#114 - You just keep telling yourself that it is OK to lie in order to fit in with a bunch of web twits.

#119 - It is how I always respond to stupidity from arrogant snots out to pick a fight like wrench and obdi and you were being.

#131 - OK troll…

#131 - I mean, I accept that you are not very bright when you troll, so maybe it would not have been obvious to you, being so painfully dumb when you troll and all…

#137 - …because the way you phrased it was either stupid or too obvious to mention? Because you were playing stupid word games when you did it…

#137 - …but you only believe that because you are stupid.

#142 - That is obvious and I actually said that… in my second post no less - you dumbass.

#142 - Try to read before trolling.

#142 - And yes dumb person, being fat is still a choice even if it is hard to lose the weight.

Additional insults by wrenchwench aimed directly at LVQ:

158 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:09:25pm

re: #155 Obdicut

At best, at absolute best, you’re saying something strictly literally true— that it’s a ‘choice’— but that’s about as useful as it being a choice to be abstinent.

Might be more difficult to control eating than sex, because you have to eat, in a way that you don’t have to have sex. And think how hard it would be to just have a little bit of sex.

re: #142 Mad Prophet Ludwig

What? OF course it is harder for some than others to lose weight. That is obvious and I actually said that… in my second post no less - you dumbass.

It doesn’t change a thing about energy conservation.

And I don’t know what your IQ is, but your reading comprehension isn’t there. Try to read before trolling. It will save you embarrassment.

And yes dumb person, being fat is still a choice even if it is hard to lose the weight.

Well, Mad Prophet, I just thought maybe you could back off this:

There are way too many fat people who take the comfortable lie, that it must be their metabolism, or their genes or their glands, or a host of other things, because that is an easy lie to believe.

and this:

Being fat is a choice.

However, since it’s me who says this, it guarantees that you won’t.

159 wrenchwench  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:10:54pm

re: #157 CuriousLurker

Work is slow today, so to update from my #97 we’re currently at:

Ludwig: 25 / wrenchwench: 2

Additional insults by LVQ aimed directly at wrenchwench, or indirectly by way of insulting all the participants of this discussion and/or members of LGF in general:

Additional insults by wrenchwench aimed directly at LVQ:

Now it’s all over but the dinging. Those don’t count as insults, right?

160 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:19:38pm

re: #159 wrenchwench

Now it’s all over but the dinging. Those don’t count as insults, right?

Nope, dings don’t count as insults. I’m gonna back off for now anyway. I’ve had enough blog jihad for one day, heh.

Time to go make some dinner and see how big of a FATTY FAT FATSO I can become…

161 efuseakay  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:31:09pm

re: #31 Mad Prophet Ludwig

re: #20 Sionainn

re: #30 Obdicut

Oh what a bunch of crap. It is this kind of BS that makes this blog silly.

If you eat less and burn more, you will loose weight. This is not debatable.

This is energy conservation.

I am not playing semantics with you idiots.

I’d rather tight weight.

162 Stanghazi  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:31:46pm

Im starving.

i just cringe imagining the condescending looks the mad prophet gives his fellow earth dwellers. ugh.

at least we saw Reine!

163 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:32:16pm

Damn Ludwig. You must have gotten a hold of some really bad heroin or something.

164 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:33:18pm

I had a burger for dinner.

165 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:34:25pm

We’re having pork chops cooked in mushroom soup, wild rice, and mixed veggies.

166 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:37:02pm

Time for some serial down dinging.

167 Stanghazi  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:38:09pm

re: #164 Vicious Babushka

re: #165 Sionainn

if my friend comes home with some salad shit im going to freak.

168 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 4:43:59pm

re: #164 Vicious Babushka

I had a burger for dinner.

DON’T YOU REALIZE THAT BURGERS CONTRIBUTES CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE! BILLIONS WILL DIE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU! WHAT ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN OR SOMETHING!!??

//

169 blueraven  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:17:53pm

re: #52 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Yes it is harder for some.

Doesn’t change a damn thing. Eat less and burn more, you will loose weight.

Seems like someone so goddamn smart, one who calls others dumb and stupid, would know the difference between lose and loose.

Normally I wouldn’t give a rats ass, but the arrogance is unbelievable.

170 Jimmah  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:43:04pm

re: #162 Stan the Demanded Plan

i just cringe imagining the condescending looks the mad prophet gives his fellow earth dwellers. ugh.

His behaviour on this site makes me think of this: compensation

I still cringe thinking about the time he imagined he was schooling women here on the real meaning of being a feminist, while actually trying to promote the idea of ‘slut shaming’ as a good thing to do and then finally melting down and calling ice a bunch of misogynistic names.

Oh yeah and then following up with a totally insincere ‘apology’ which was nothing more than another launchpad for his bullshit.

I’ve tried my best to avoid him since then, while he has gone on to unleash his vitriol on one after another of his former LGF friends who made the mistake of not agreeing to EVERYTHING he has to say, especially the stuff that’s completely crazy and obnoxious.

171 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:48:41pm

re: #155 Obdicut

And more shifts…

OK you mentioned abstinence only education, as your stupid faulty parallel.

And now you are shifting it to the general need to eat.

Let’s look at that.

Take your average teen boy (the target of abstinence only education) and imagine telling him he has to say no to sex vs. telling him he has to watch his weight and get in shape.

Let’s do the thought experiment…

Let’s say he finds a willing pretty young partner… If he truly believed that not eating anything for two days would get him with her, he would not eat. Don’t be stupid.

172 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:51:29pm

re: #170 Jimmah

I was waiting for you to show up. For the record, you could see some of Stienam’s takes on the bunny outfit before you go defending how dressing like they do on Fox helps women. But cringe away. Feel better now?

re: #157 CuriousLurker

And you still have nothing to contribute.

re: #168 Gus

DON’T YOU REALIZE THAT BURGERS CONTRIBUTES CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE! BILLIONS WILL DIE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU! WHAT ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN OR SOMETHING!!??

//

And now you are being a total asshole Gus. I would have expected better from you. Apparently not - and truly pathetic.

173 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:53:53pm

And one has to wonder why I bother. I am wondering that right now. You would think that the supposition that eating less and exercising more would of necessity cause one to lose weight would not be so controversial.

Really, most would think that.

One would think that it is indeed a choice to do so.

Really most would think that.

But alas, this is how far down the stupid hole trolling gets people.

Really fucking stupid.

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:56:03pm

re: #169 blueraven

Seems like someone so goddamn smart, one who calls others dumb and stupid, would know the difference between lose and loose.

Normally I wouldn’t give a rats ass, but the arrogance is unbelievable.

Yeah that was dumb spelling error on my part. really dumb. I admit it.

But so what? Typos and bad spelling I sometimes do.

It doesn’t change the fact that really, if you eat less and burn more you will lose weight… I know so arrogant to say… What was I thinking? So mean to say there is never a gun forcing you to stuff your face. So mean mean mean.

175 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:56:39pm

re: #164 Vicious Babushka

I had a burger for dinner.

That’s why you are fat honey.

176 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:56:59pm

re: #175 Mad Prophet Ludwig

That’s why you are fat honey.

Honey?

177 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 5:58:09pm

re: #172 Mad Prophet Ludwig

I was waiting for you to show up. For the record, you could see some of Stienam’s takes on the bunny outfit before you go defending how dressing like they do on Fox helps women. But cringe away. Feel better now?

re: #157 CuriousLurker

And you still have nothing to contribute.

re: #168 Gus

And now you are being a total asshole Gus. I would have expected better from you. Apparently not - and truly pathetic.

Newsflash Ludwig, you’ve been an asshole throughout this thread.

178 Political Atheist  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:09:30pm

re: #3 Mad Prophet Ludwig

OF course it is wrong to assume guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding based on someone’s weight.

However, being fat is not a gender, sexual preference or a race. Being fat is something that is actually bad for the person, and something that a person has the ability to change.

Being fat is a choice.

The kind of mindset that pretends it isn’t deserves to be castigated.

It’s not that simple. Some people have a systemic problem, metabolism or some over applied biological drive to store fat at any and every opportunity. I have a lifelong friend with this kind of condition. His only way out is surgery so dangerous it’s a toss up at his age. I’m no doctor but I know this for a fact. It is not in his control. No more than color of skin.

179 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:12:38pm

re: #175 Mad Prophet Ludwig

That’s why you are fat honey.

Taking that MAD part of your name a tad too literally, huh?

180 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:13:10pm

re: #177 Gus

Newsflash Ludwig, you’ve been an asshole throughout this thread.

Asshole or mentally-ill person. Assuming I’m right, and it seems obvious, everyone in this thread is an asshole for engaging a mentally-ill person.

181 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:17:53pm

re: #180 JeffFX

Asshole or mentally-ill person. Assuming I’m right, and it seems obvious, everyone in this thread is an asshole for engaging a mentally-ill person.

When I was a kid, I never went to the circus to see the high wire act or the elephants

I went to see the clowns and freak shows!!

//

182 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:19:18pm

re: #178 Political Atheist

It’s not that simple. Some people have a systemic problem, metabolism or some over applied biological drive to store fat at any and every opportunity. I have a lifelong friend with this kind of condition. His only way out is surgery so dangerous it’s a toss up at his age. I’m no doctor but I know this for a fact. It is not in his control. No more than color of skin.

Yes. In many cases obesity is largely an immutable characteristic. It could be temporary or long term. It could be a systemic illness or it could be caused through medication. Regardless, it’s not something one can easily hide and this they are quickly subjected to what is prejudice, ridicule, etc.

It can also be a result of psychological disorders within a spectrum. Most commonly known as an eating disorder. Depression can cause obesity since food becomes a drug. It’s not as easy as some would suggest, just eating less. This is tantamount to telling someone with anorexia, “well, you just have to eat more.” It’s a rather simplistic view of obesity.

183 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:21:42pm

re: #177 Gus

Newsflash Ludwig, you’ve been an asshole throughout this thread blog.

ftfy

184 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:23:56pm

re: #183 sattv4u2

Newsflash Ludwig, you’ve been an asshole throughout this thread blog.

At one time he was one of my favorite lizards, but he got less amusing and more abrasive over time. It could be meth.

185 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:25:26pm

re: #180 JeffFX

Asshole or mentally-ill person. Assuming I’m right, and it seems obvious, everyone in this thread is an asshole for engaging a mentally-ill person.

I don’t much care what the reason is for his behavior or who might think I’m an asshole (wouldn’t be the first time I was labeled as such). I’ve watched him abuse countless people over the years I’ve been here, and today he just kept heaping insults on wrenchwench for no good reason. It’s wrong. Enough already.

186 Charles Johnson  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:26:02pm

There’s only so much of this kind of behavior I’ll put up with, and I just reached my limit. This is me, done.

187 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:26:08pm

re: #182 Gus

Good points. If someone has issues with alcohol, abstaining entirely is usually the goal to aim for. If someone has issues with food, total abstinence is not an option.

Just imagine how well treatment for alcoholism would work in practice if a few ounces a day of alcohol were required to sustain life.

188 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:28:14pm

re: #185 CuriousLurker

Really wrong! I agree.
In referring to the people responding to him, I mean the meaning of asshole that’s synonymous with “chump.” As is you all wasted your time arguing with a crazy person instead of dropping Charles a line so post 186 could have happened much sooner.

189 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:30:16pm

re: #185 CuriousLurker

I don’t much care what the reason is for his behavior or who might think I’m an asshole (wouldn’t be the first time I was labeled as such). I’ve watched him abuse countless people over the years I’ve been here, and today he just kept heaping insults on wrenchwench for no good reason. It’s wrong. Enough already.

Thats why I came over here

I may disagree with people here from time to time, but once someone crosses the line with mindless name calling thats when i jump in,, ESPECIALLY if it’s a male doing it to a female!!

Old fashioned me, I guess

190 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:30:19pm

re: #188 JeffFX

Learn something new every day — I had no idea there was a second meaning there, and had no idea where you were coming from.

191 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:31:06pm

re: #188 JeffFX

Really wrong! I agree.
In referring to the people responding to him, I mean the meaning of asshole that’s synonymous with “chump.” As is you all wasted your time arguing with a crazy person instead of dropping Charles a line so post 186 could have happened much sooner.

Charles was in denial, sitting in the main thread with his eyes squeezed shut so as not to see the train wreck. LOL // JK, Charles!

192 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:31:50pm

re: #189 sattv4u2

Thats why I came over here

I may disagree with people here from time to time, but once someone crosses the line with mindless name calling thats when i jump in,, ESPECIALLY if it’s a male doing it to a female!!

Old fashioned me, I guess

Agreed. There was a lot of swill, but #175 was really beyond the pale.

193 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:32:04pm

NOBODY is posting on the upstairs thread!

194 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:32:51pm

re: #193 Vicious Babushka

NOBODY is posting on the upstairs thread!

Who doesn’t love a really good train wreck?

195 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:33:13pm

It’s better to be fat than full of FAIL.

196 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:33:14pm

re: #193 Vicious Babushka

NOBODY is posting on the upstairs thread!

Well, you told everyone all the action was HERE !!!
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

197 Political Atheist  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:33:52pm

re: #193 Vicious Babushka

Great Page, sorry to see someone trash it up. Damn.

198 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:34:05pm

re: #195 Vicious Babushka

It’s better to be fat than full of FAIL.

Some people are gluttons for food, other are gluttons for punishment. :D

199 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:34:29pm

re: #189 sattv4u2

Thats why I came over here

I may disagree with people here from time to time, but once someone crosses the line with mindless name calling thats when i jump in,, ESPECIALLY if it’s a male doing it to a female!!

Old fashioned me, I guess

Yeah, I was kinda surprised to see you here. You’re a pretty okay guy sometimes, you know that?*

// Please don’t tell any of my liberal pals I said that, ‘kay? ;)

200 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:34:40pm

I don’t think anything like this has ever happened, that the main thread is abandoned for the downstairs poo fight.

201 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:35:14pm

re: #199 CuriousLurker

Yeah, I was kinda surprised to see you here. You’re a pretty okay guy sometimes, you know that?*

// Please don’t tell any of my liberal pas I said that, ‘kay? ;)

Your secret is safe wif me!!

202 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:35:36pm

What a sad and sorry end for someone that I really liked, when he wasn’t a raging turd.

203 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:35:58pm

re: #193 Vicious Babushka

NOBODY is posting on the upstairs thread!

SEE WHAT YOU STARTED???

204 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:38:27pm

re: #201 sattv4u2

Your secret is safe wif me!!

I don’t like it. Not at all. The right and the left aren’t meant to get along.

You two need to say something nasty to each other or the universe’s balance will be out.

205 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:39:40pm

re: #202 Vicious Babushka

What a sad and sorry end for someone that I really liked, when he wasn’t a raging turd.

Has anyone seen someone deteriorate like that in an online community, then recover and go on to be a productive member again?

It occurs to me that irl people freak out, then calm down, get a little help, and reintegrate into local communities. Online, people crack then are never heard from again in their online community.

206 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:40:06pm

re: #173 Mad Prophet Ludwig

And one has to wonder why I bother. I am wondering that right now. You would think that the supposition that eating less and exercising more would of necessity cause one to lose weight would not be so controversial.

Actually, everyone here agrees with that, something you’d know if you had bothered to get off your high horse and pay attention.

207 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:40:37pm

re: #205 JeffFX

Has anyone seen someone deteriorate like that in an online community, then recover and go on to be a productive member again?

It occurs to me that irl people freak out, then calm down, get a little help, and reintegrate into local communities. Online, people crack then are never heard from again in their online community.

They will show up again with another nic, on another forum, same rage.

208 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:41:18pm

re: #207 Vicious Babushka

but no recovery and redemption ever?

209 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:41:57pm

re: #204 b_sharp

I don’t like it. Not at all. The right and the left aren’t meant to get along.

You two need to say something nasty to each other or the universe’s balance will be out.

LOL, okay…

Satt? You’re a Southerner, so there! //

210 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:42:03pm

re: #205 JeffFX

Has anyone seen someone deteriorate like that in an online community, then recover and go on to be a productive member again?

It occurs to me that irl people freak out, then calm down, get a little help, and reintegrate into local communities. Online, people crack then are never heard from again in their online community.

LVQ has been banned before. He came back contrite but obviously his inner demons got the better of him

211 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:42:56pm

re: #208 JeffFX

but no recovery and redemption ever?

I’ve never seen it. I wonder if Charles has. If anyone would know, he would.

212 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:43:20pm

re: #210 sattv4u2

Thanks. Glad to hear people are able to come back after acting out. Shame he couldn’t keep it together to make something of his second chance.

213 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:43:51pm

re: #209 CuriousLurker

LOL, okay…

Satt? You’re a Southerner, so there! //

heh ,, shows how much YOU know, smarty pants

Have only been living in the south for 14 out of the past 15 years

For the 1st 44 years of my life I spent most of my time in/ around Boston. Was born and raised there

So,, Nah Nah Boo Boo

214 Jimmah  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:44:13pm

re: #179 sattv4u2

Taking that MAD part of your name a tad too literally, huh?

Updinged for Quality.

215 Interesting Times  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:44:21pm

re: #211 CuriousLurker

I’ve never seen it. I wonder if Charles has. If anyone would know, he would.

PPL was allowed to come back, after getting help.

re: #210 sattv4u2

LVQ has been banned before.

He wasn’t banned, he was timed out. But also warned, at the time, that it was the last timeout he’d get.

216 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:45:11pm

re: #214 Jimmah

Updinged for Quality.

Thank you sir

And HOWDY to the missus

217 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:45:19pm

re: #206 Sionainn

Actually, everyone here agrees with that, something you’d know if you had bothered to get off your high horse and pay attention.

Bingo. Why is it that enthusiastic truth-tellers often feel so compelled to disregard all manners and tact? This was an unnecessary fight about style, not substance.

218 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:45:23pm

re: #211 CuriousLurker

re: #213 sattv4u2

Ah, the balance of the universe has been conserved.

219 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:45:38pm

re: #215 Interesting Times

PPL was allowed to come back, after getting help.

re: #210 sattv4u2

He wasn’t banned, he was timed out. But also warned, at the time, that it was the last timeout he’d get.

Thanks for the correction

220 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:46:19pm

re: #213 sattv4u2

heh ,, shows how much YOU know, smarty pants

Have only been living in the south for 14 out of the past 15 years

For the 1st 44 years of my life I spent most of my time in/ around Boston. Was born and raised there

So,, Nah Nah Boo Boo

Drat! Looks like we switched places around the same time. I’m actually the real southerner and you’re the real yankee. *wipes drool from chin*

221 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:46:32pm

Well, here’s a FAKE HITLER QUOTE!

222 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:47:22pm

I didn’t understand the blanket lashing out at Wrenchwench, Alouette, Reine, and Curious Lurker. I’d say I was surprised but as you can see we’re looking at all women here. Granted, I haven’t been an angel but I try to keep it to one insult and then pass out. :D Anyway, calling people “stupid” or “dumb” as a debate method is rather childish.

223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:48:11pm

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

224 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:48:24pm

re: #215 Interesting Times

PPL was allowed to come back, after getting help.

re: #210 sattv4u2

He wasn’t banned, he was timed out. But also warned, at the time, that it was the last timeout he’d get.

You’re absolutely right, on both counts.

Interesting Times <— Remember not to piss her off. She never forgets any detail. //

225 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:48:40pm

re: #222 Gus

I didn’t understand the blanket lashing out at Wrenchwench, Alouette, Reine, and Curious Lurker. I’d say I was surprised but as you can see we’re looking at all women here. Granted, I haven’t been an angel but I try to keep it to one insult and then pass out. :D Anyway, calling people “stupid” or “dumb” as a debate method is rather childish.

Hey, don’t forget me! I’m a mindless follower of a clique full of stupid people.

226 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:48:44pm

Yes, I’m saying misogyny was at play here.

227 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:48:58pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

HEY! We were talking about you just the other night, I swear! How are you?

228 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:49:03pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

FBV!!!!

{{HUGS}}

Where ya been!!

229 Sionainn  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:49:20pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

Where the heck have you been?!? Good to see you!

230 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:49:27pm

re: #225 Sionainn

Hey, don’t forget me! I’m a mindless follower of a clique full of stupid people.

Oops, sorry. I read the thread earlier and was kind of floored.

231 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:50:17pm

re: #225 Sionainn

Hey, don’t forget me! I’m a mindless follower of a clique full of stupid people.

Sionainn <— Zombie Lizard //

232 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:50:18pm

re: #226 Gus

Yes, I’m saying misogyny was at play here.

Why get that specific about raging mental illness? Can you not spot a totally irrational person?

233 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:50:40pm

41 minutes, still no comments on the main thread.

Let’s take it upstairs, people.

234 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:50:57pm

re: #228 Vicious Babushka

Hiding from people who hate fatties.

Nah… actually been trying to spend less time at the computer (successfully, btw). Poked my head in to say “Hi!” and y’all be gittin’ all up in each other’s grills about Fatty McButterpants.

235 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:51:19pm

re: #226 Gus

Yes, I’m saying misogyny was at play here.

He was also raging on Obdicut.

236 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:51:57pm

re: #232 JeffFX

Why get that specific about raging mental illness? Can you not spot a totally irrational person?

I don’t know. I try to avoid the mental illness stuff these days… Never attribute to mental illness that which is adequately explained by malice.

237 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:53:20pm

re: #222 Gus

I didn’t understand the blanket lashing out at Wrenchwench, Alouette, Reine, and Curious Lurker. I’d say I was surprised but as you can see we’re looking at all women here. Granted, I haven’t been an angel but I try to keep it to one insult and then pass out. :D Anyway, calling people “stupid” or “dumb” as a debate method is rather childish.

Well, in this instance I admit I kinda ambushed him, so it wasn’t really unexpected. But the others didn’t deserve the vitriol flung at them.

238 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:53:37pm

re: #226 Gus

Yes, I’m saying misogyny was at play here.

He’s been like that for years

Climate change, he’s got his stuff together

Women, not so much!

239 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:53:45pm

Good to see y’all.

Out like a fat kid in dodgeball.

240 sattv4u2  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:53:54pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

Who the hell are you??

/

241 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:54:04pm

re: #235 Vicious Babushka

He was also raging on Obdicut.

Yeah. Maybe I’m trying to steer into my own narrative. Looking upthread again. Yikes. “Dumbass?” WTF. Not just once but numerous times to a lot of folks.

242 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:54:27pm

I got here too late, but the argument was nothing more than talking at cross purposes. The conservation of energy was not argued against by anyone here, and I’m surprised LVQ couldn’t see that, it was obvious and clearly stated more than once.

The number of calories going into the mouth is always more than what is harvested by the body which varies by person. The chemical processes in the body selectively use, store or reject the calories pulled from food. This can be easily measured in feces, urine, saliva, sweat and mucus.

243 Amory Blaine  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:54:39pm

So this is the fatso thread huh? Don’t look so fat to me.

:p

244 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:55:37pm

Old grudges I suppose.

245 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:56:07pm

re: #242 b_sharp

I wonder how many calories we burned in this thread… O_o

246 EPR-radar  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:56:41pm

re: #245 CuriousLurker

I wonder how many calories we burned in this thread… O_o

The answer to that question is always: “Too few.”

247 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:57:09pm

re: #245 CuriousLurker

I wonder how many calories we burned in this thread… O_o

A quick sniff should tell you.

248 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:58:00pm

re: #236 Gus

I don’t know. I try to avoid the mental illness stuff these days… Never attribute to mental illness that which is adequately explained by malice.

I think malice comes from mental illness.

249 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:58:54pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

a) Amen.
b) Good to see your nic again. It’s been awhile.

250 CuriousLurker  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:58:56pm

re: #246 EPR-radar

The answer to that question is always: “Too few.”

True that!

re: #247 b_sharp

A quick sniff should tell you.

LOL!

Okay, and on that note I’m outta here for the night. Later, lizards.

251 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:59:19pm

Speaking of mental illness:

B@bette ‏@MuffinAndElliot
Photos of children taken from Flicker; Not children from Newtown at all! #SandyHook #nra #tgdn

@Loudobbsnews
252 Jimmah  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 6:59:21pm

re: #232 JeffFX

Why get that specific about raging mental illness? Can you not spot a totally irrational person?

I think it’s pretty clear we were seeing someone who is emotionally unhinged there, not someone with disordered thought processes.

253 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:01:22pm

re: #252 Jimmah

I think it’s pretty clear we were seeing someone who is emotionally unhinged there, not someone with disordered thought processes.

I’m not sure we’re qualified to make that diagnosis.

254 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:01:43pm

re: #252 Jimmah

I think it’s pretty clear we were seeing someone who is emotionally unhinged there, not someone with disordered thought processes.

I’d say both. It’s not word-salad, but it’s a total failure to understand and make points, along with a bunch of lashing out at more coherent people.

255 JeffFX  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:03:06pm

re: #253 b_sharp

I’m not sure we’re qualified to make that diagnosis.

I’m qualified. I plan to become a Republican politician, so I can make these kinds of diagnoses. I don’t even need a video.
/

256 Jimmah  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:05:17pm

re: #242 b_sharp

I got here too late, but the argument was nothing more than talking at cross purposes. The conservation of energy was not argued against by anyone here, and I’m surprised LVQ couldn’t see that, it was obvious and clearly stated more than once.

The number of calories going into the mouth is always more than what is harvested by the body which varies by person. The chemical processes in the body selectively use, store or reject the calories pulled from food. This can be easily measured in feces, urine, saliva, sweat and mucus.

LVQ’s three point debate plan (seen it many times now)

1) Make ridiculous claim/ express obnoxious sentiment.

2) Also mention an established scientific principle such as Newton’s Second Law, or some reasonable and universally accepted moral principle.

3) Respond to criticism of 1) by claiming that your critics are rubbishing 2)

257 b_sharp  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:05:25pm

re: #255 JeffFX

I’m qualified. I plan to become a Republican politician, so I can make these kinds of diagnoses. I don’t even need a video.
/

LOL.

Hang on a sec, I have a cat to swing at that.

258 Jimmah  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:07:18pm

re: #253 b_sharp

I’m not sure we’re qualified to make that diagnosis.

Well we’re not qualified to make it either way, that’s true.

259 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:12:16pm

OK, everyone go upstairs!

260 blueraven  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:13:24pm

re: #245 CuriousLurker

I wonder how many calories we burned in this thread… O_o

I dont know, but somebody burned more than a few bridges.

261 Usually refered to as anyways  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 7:35:07pm

re: #223 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Someone who wants to hate on fat people in Murika? Well, they better pack a lunch. There’s a bunch of us.

FBV!!!

Don’t leave it so long till you visit.

262 Gus  Tue, Jan 22, 2013 8:42:35pm

You reap what you sow.

263 Death Panel Truck  Wed, Jan 23, 2013 7:46:18am

re: #52 Mad Prophet Ludwig

Doesn’t change a damn thing. Eat less and burn more, you will loose weight.

People don’t “loose” weight, dumbass. However, they do “lose” weight. How can I take you seriously if you don’t know the difference between these two simple words, the definitions of which you should have learned by the third grade?

264 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 23, 2013 9:00:04am

re: #239 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Good to see y’all.

Out like a fat kid in dodgeball.

Can I ‘troll’ anybody else to get you to drop in again?

265 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 23, 2013 9:49:47am

re: #182 Gus

Yes. In many cases obesity is largely an immutable characteristic. It could be temporary or long term. It could be a systemic illness or it could be caused through medication. Regardless, it’s not something one can easily hide and this they are quickly subjected to what is prejudice, ridicule, etc.

It can also be a result of psychological disorders within a spectrum. Most commonly known as an eating disorder. Depression can cause obesity since food becomes a drug. It’s not as easy as some would suggest, just eating less. This is tantamount to telling someone with anorexia, “well, you just have to eat more.” It’s a rather simplistic view of obesity.

THIS. I would also remind everyone that there are people whose eating disorders stem from having already been severely physically or psychologically abused—victims of incest, rape, domestic/child abuse, etc.—so heaping additional ridicule & hurt on them isn’t only morally wrong, it borders on sadism.

266 Flavia  Sat, Jan 26, 2013 11:35:04pm

re: #23 Vicious Babushka

So that would also mean the 90-lb. one is puking on the sly?

I dumped a guy who insisted to my face that I must be anorexic, because I was 5’10” & 135 pounds (ok, there were other reasons, but they were only along the same lines: obnoxious jerk).

That said, I think there’s something in American food, & friends of mine who have lived overseas agree with me. One said that when she ate the same foods there as she ate over here, she actually lost weight. When I look at people from other countries, we ARE fatter (in general). Lots fatter. Which leads me to believe that it’s either something we allow in our food, or it’s cultural, because there are plenty of people in this country who are lazy slobs who eat Mickey D’s every other day.

There are all sorts of reasons why people are fat, & it’s wrong to lump them all together in judgment.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

TwitterFacebook

Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing!
Take advantage of our end-of-the-year subscription special, and save 25% off the normal subscription price! For a limited time, one-year ad-free subscriptions are just $59.95. Turn off all ads for a full year by subscribing now and save!
Read more...

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form
LGF Pages

This button leads to the main index of LGF Pages, our user-submitted articles. You can post your own LGF Pages simply by registering a free account with us.

Create a Page

This is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.

Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.

Last updated: 2014-12-15 2:06 pm PST

LGF User's Guide
Recent Pages
Lumberhead
NYPD Union Leader: Policing Rules, Black Congressional Staff Protesters, Are ‘Stupid’
An NYPD union leader railed against policing laws and protesters during a meeting last Friday, calling the laws "stupid rules," and last week's black Congressional staff walkout "stupid shit." [...] Lynch continued on his tirade against stupid people and ...

59 minutes ago
Views: 71 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0
Randall Gross
Hopes for Ukraine Peace Talks Resumption as Russia Softens
Momentum is building for a resumption of peace talks on Ukraine, after the European Union and United States noted an apparent softening of Russia's stance towards the Kiev government and its conflict with pro-Moscow separatists. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko ...

8 hours, 25 minutes ago
Views: 99 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0
The Vicious Babushka
The Vicious Babushka: Happy Hanukkah Around the World
More: EUROPE'S LARGEST MENORAH, IN GERMANY: WARSAW, POLAND: Statement by the President Obama on Hanukkah Over the eight nights of Hanukkah, Jews across America, Israel, and the world will remember an ancient triumph of freedom over oppression, and renew their ...

1 day, 7 hours ago
Views: 187 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 3
FemNaziBitch
‘God Loves Women Who Have Abortions’: The Religious Abortion Advocates That History Forgot
The New York legislature had just failed to pass an incremental reform to the state's strict anti-abortion law, leaving the status quo in place. At that time, deaths resulting from illegal abortions accounted for 42 percent of New York ...

1 day, 7 hours ago
Views: 281 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 15 • Rating: 0
Rightwingconspirator
Blackmores Night-Christmas Music Olde And New At The Same Time
Spotify Youtube

2 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 160 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Romantic Heretic
It’s Beginning To Feel A Lot Like Christmas
As always, Fairytale of New York makes me realize what time of the year it is.

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 364 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
Dark_Falcon
The College Rape Overcorrection
This is the article I promised to post this morning. The quoted passage is from the second section, "2. An Overcorrection". We are told that one of the most dangerous places for a young woman in America today is a ...

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 666 • Comments: 11
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1
cinesimon
Charles Barkley and the Plague of ‘Unintelligent’ Blacks
theatlantic.com

1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 700 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 2
teleskiguy
Nixon’s The One - “Secrets”
Episode three of Harry Shearer's "Nixon's the One" bares the man's horrible paranoia and prejudices, and his proclivity for sleeping pills. His conversations about J. Edgar Hoover are especially instructive. As Sir David Frost says at the beginning, "So there ...

1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 695 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 8 • Rating: 0
Click My Icon To Watch This Short French Film.
Shameless Plug For Anyone Interested In Supporting French Cinema
I have a friend who made a very short French comedy for the Nikon Film Festival.I realize it does not have English subtitles but the premise of the movie is about young new filmmakers trying to come up with an ...

1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 556 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6
 Frank says:

Well, you and I would differ on what's ignorance and educated. -- Senator Ernest Hollings to Zappa