Dubstepforum.com

Fat people shouldn't be allowed to breed. All well and good ruining their own lives with poor lifestyle choices, but to bring a child into a chubby household? That's just cruel.

Free sterilisation with all type 2 diabetes shots

wub wrote:Free sterilisation with all type 2 diabetes shots

I vote this.

You shouldn't be entitled to public health care if you're over a certain weight either. 40 stone, unlikely.. go to a vet.

is it bad parenting when its the norm?

capitalism and what it would make from your childs corpse

there leading you a merry dance, child in arm, bright colours, the childs happy, but its all a mirage, and the road becomes a hole.

peoples stupidity plays a part but to unravel one bit you have to unravel it all. Im not talking space lizards just that each contradiction or falsehood is linked elsewhere with others and you need the whole house to come down for any real difference.

butter man wrote:so yeh regulate it. the unhealthy stuff that is.

It's impossibly hard to regulate. I'm taking off my libertarian hat for a second and I'm just looking at it practically given the system that is in place, and considering the nature of diet and exercise, you cannot create one a size fits all approach for 'health regulation' and on top of that, the science on this changes all the time and it would take a long time for advances in health related science to get implemented by the law. Never mind the millions and billions of dollars/euros/whathaveyou that need to be spent on constantly updating the laws as well.

It's completely impractical and impossible to do.

Muncey wrote:You shouldn't be entitled to public health care if you're over a certain weight either. 40 stone, unlikely.. go to a vet.

I've no issue with public health care, however, as I mentioned earlier the fat tax (putting people in a higher tax bracket if they're a chunky monkey) would mean they are effectively subsidising themselves.

Genevieve wrote:

nitz wrote:
Edit - i think i got it, you saying calorie in, calorie out?

Yes, weightloss/gain is about calories in vs calories out. Regardless of where those calories come from. Body composition has to do with calories+macronutrient profile (protein/carbs/fat) and activity type/level.

Vitamins, essential fats, fiber, variety, minerals etc is important when it comes to overal health, but even then, when you meet your daily requirements for those, it is ok to indulge in a little junkfood if you can make it fit your caloric intake and macronutrional profile.

But the bottom line is still that weightloss is about energy intake + energy expenditure. So in those regards, promoting one piece of food as 'weightloss friendly' and another as 'fattening' would be faulty from a nutritional standpoint, since quite clearly, it's not food that makes you fat, but the amount of any in calories.

wouldnt various foods stimulate to help rid of those calories. a bowl of porridge and a bag of haribo may have the smae calories (they probably dont) but one is gonna make you go -get-em better. for a sustained period.

what about fat people with private health insurance who are they subsidising?

scspkr99 wrote:what about fat people with private health insurance who are they subsidising?

If it's private they're paying for themselves anyway. If they're stupid enough to be fat and are therefore getting charged twice (effectively), it's their own chubby fault.

lol

wub wrote:Fat people shouldn't be allowed to breed. All well and good ruining their own lives with poor lifestyle choices, but to bring a child into a chubby household? That's just cruel.

Can't tell if you're on the troll or what, but that's ridiculous.

Muncey wrote:

wub wrote:Free sterilisation with all type 2 diabetes shots

I vote this.

You shouldn't be entitled to public health care if you're over a certain weight either. 40 stone, unlikely.

Again, can't tell in this thread who's trolling or not, but when people say "xyz shouldn't get public health care because of xyz" you set a dangerous precedent. People who drive cars shouldn't get health care for road accidents, because they could've taken a bus. People that play sports shouldn't get health care for broken bones because they could've stayed at home doing a puzzle, etc.

compulsory blood tests in work with higher taxes for the drug takers and the drunks

garethom wrote:People that play sports shouldn't get health care for broken bones because they could've stayed at home doing a puzzle, etc.

Penalising people for being healthy? I hope you're trolling

Genevieve wrote:

nitz wrote:
Edit - i think i got it, you saying calorie in, calorie out?

Yes, weightloss/gain is about calories in vs calories out. Regardless of where those calories come from. Body composition has to do with calories+macronutrient profile (protein/carbs/fat) and activity type/level.

Vitamins, essential fats, fiber, variety, minerals etc is important when it comes to overal health, but even then, when you meet your daily requirements for those, it is ok to indulge in a little junkfood if you can make it fit your caloric intake and macronutrional profile.

But the bottom line is still that weightloss is about energy intake + energy expenditure. So in those regards, promoting one piece of food as 'weightloss friendly' and another as 'fattening' would be faulty from a nutritional standpoint, since quite clearly, it's not food that makes you fat, but the amount of any in calories.

Purely in relation weightloss, a restricted caloroes count per day will make you lose weight, if your interested in that way. But anything other that then the calories in vs calories out is perhaps the 1st or 2nd med industry back room joke. It is one of the most flawed systems out there. If you don't believe me read things like The Calorie Myth, why we get fat and what to do about it, and basic paleo stuff. carloie counting is bad for you physically AND mentally. If you truly believe in the system for any other purpose then a semi weight loss for a while, please do some further reserach, concern for a fellow DSF's that all.


Oh yeah, also the smarter science of slim.

wub wrote:

garethom wrote:People that play sports shouldn't get health care for broken bones because they could've stayed at home doing a puzzle, etc.

Penalising people for being healthy? I hope you're trolling

Cmon Wub, you can come up with something better than that. I clearly don't agree with it, that's why I bought it up. And why not, people genuinely suggest that fat people shouldn't get health care because they've made a bad choice in their life. Why should people who willingly choose to put themselves in high risk situations on a regular basis benefit from public health care?

When you pick and choose who should get public health care, you open up a whole can of worms.

Being fat is a choice, same as driving a car is a choice.

If you drive a car, it is your choice but you pay insurance/MOT/road tax, so in the case of your being a speng and getting in an accident there is a financial cushion to offset the cost to parties involved and society as a whole.

Likewise, if you're fat then that's your choice, but you should have to pay a premium for it as your gluttony means a strain on the public health sector.

butter man wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

nitz wrote:
Edit - i think i got it, you saying calorie in, calorie out?

Yes, weightloss/gain is about calories in vs calories out. Regardless of where those calories come from. Body composition has to do with calories+macronutrient profile (protein/carbs/fat) and activity type/level.

Vitamins, essential fats, fiber, variety, minerals etc is important when it comes to overal health, but even then, when you meet your daily requirements for those, it is ok to indulge in a little junkfood if you can make it fit your caloric intake and macronutrional profile.

But the bottom line is still that weightloss is about energy intake + energy expenditure. So in those regards, promoting one piece of food as 'weightloss friendly' and another as 'fattening' would be faulty from a nutritional standpoint, since quite clearly, it's not food that makes you fat, but the amount of any in calories.

wouldnt various foods stimulate to help rid of those calories. a bowl of porridge and a bag of haribo may have the smae calories (they probably dont) but one is gonna make you go -get-em better. for a sustained period.

The differences would be minute. The porridge has fiber which has a thermic effect on your body, almost as much as protein (though fat has the opposite effect or no effect I believe), but they don't make a huge difference. Drinking a lot of cold water helps with weightloss too, because it lowers your body temperature, which you body will try to compensate for by speeding up your metabolism, but over a year, this amounts to almost nothing.

But there is no reason why you can't have the porridge AND haribos if you're smart about how you're eating and that's pretty much it. And you can overeat and get fat on anything, including porridge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck

kinda takes the shine away from how hard you worked to get your new car. or being smug to thiose 'lazy' less fortunate.

not that I fully subscribe to that. Im trim as fuck. pretty buff as of late n all gnnnnnn

nitz wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

nitz wrote:
Edit - i think i got it, you saying calorie in, calorie out?

Yes, weightloss/gain is about calories in vs calories out. Regardless of where those calories come from. Body composition has to do with calories+macronutrient profile (protein/carbs/fat) and activity type/level.

Vitamins, essential fats, fiber, variety, minerals etc is important when it comes to overal health, but even then, when you meet your daily requirements for those, it is ok to indulge in a little junkfood if you can make it fit your caloric intake and macronutrional profile.

But the bottom line is still that weightloss is about energy intake + energy expenditure. So in those regards, promoting one piece of food as 'weightloss friendly' and another as 'fattening' would be faulty from a nutritional standpoint, since quite clearly, it's not food that makes you fat, but the amount of any in calories.

Purely in relation weightloss, a restricted caloroes count per day will make you lose weight, if your interested in that way. But anything other that then the calories in vs calories out is perhaps the 1st or 2nd med industry back room joke. It is one of the most flawed systems out there. If you don't believe me read things like The Calorie Myth, why we get fat and what to do about it, and basic paleo stuff. carloie counting is bad for you physically AND mentally. If you truly believe in the system for any other purpose then a semi weight loss for a while, please do some further reserach, concern for a fellow DSF's that all.


Oh yeah, also the smarter science of slim.

Tell me where the excess energy from a surpluss caloric intake disappears to?

Genevieve wrote:

butter man wrote:

Genevieve wrote:

nitz wrote:
Edit - i think i got it, you saying calorie in, calorie out?

Yes, weightloss/gain is about calories in vs calories out. Regardless of where those calories come from. Body composition has to do with calories+macronutrient profile (protein/carbs/fat) and activity type/level.

Vitamins, essential fats, fiber, variety, minerals etc is important when it comes to overal health, but even then, when you meet your daily requirements for those, it is ok to indulge in a little junkfood if you can make it fit your caloric intake and macronutrional profile.

But the bottom line is still that weightloss is about energy intake + energy expenditure. So in those regards, promoting one piece of food as 'weightloss friendly' and another as 'fattening' would be faulty from a nutritional standpoint, since quite clearly, it's not food that makes you fat, but the amount of any in calories.

wouldnt various foods stimulate to help rid of those calories. a bowl of porridge and a bag of haribo may have the smae calories (they probably dont) but one is gonna make you go -get-em better. for a sustained period.

The differences would be minute. The porridge has fiber which has a thermic effect on your body, almost as much as protein (though fat has the opposite effect or no effect I believe), but they don't make a huge difference. Drinking a lot of cold water helps with weightloss too, because it lowers your body temperature, which you body will try to compensate for by speeding up your metabolism, but over a year, this amounts to almost nothing.

But there is no reason why you can't have the porridge AND haribos if you're smart about how you're eating and that's pretty much it. And you can overeat and get fat on anything, including porridge.

So when I eat well and feel better for it, apart from the obvious vitamin intake, is it more a feeling of happiness from rewarding myself for eating what I believe to be good?

wub wrote:Being fat is a choice, same as driving a car is a choice.

If you drive a car, it is your choice but you pay insurance/MOT/road tax, so in the case of your being a speng and getting in an accident there is a financial cushion to offset the cost to parties involved and society as a whole.

Likewise, if you're fat then that's your choice, but you should have to pay a premium for it as your gluttony means a strain on the public health sector.

And if you buy more food/drink more beer you're paying more VAT, duty, etc. than the average person putting more into the coffers.

You're talking about a increased risk that you'll cost more to care for than other people. Everybody has areas that are high risk that they could be charged more for.

Smoking. Sports. Diet. Drugs. Stress. Job Occupation. The list of things that would make people a higher risk is endless. It's better that everybody just pay a flat fee calculated to cover a level of risk appropriate for everyone rather than fall into the trap of picking and choosing who gets cover because of lifestyle choices. I made the lifestyle choice to play a violent contact sport. If anything, I'm a higher risk than somebody who's obese of needing expensive care.