Dubstepforum.com

garethom wrote: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.

Yes but you have private cover and a healthy lifestyle. So you're offsetting your choices.

Fat people have neither of these. They statistically earn less so can't afford private cover, and have an unhealthy lifestyle.

wub wrote:

garethom wrote: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.

Yes but you have private cover and a healthy lifestyle. So you're offsetting your choices.

Fat people have neither of these. They statistically earn less so can't afford private cover, and have an unhealthy lifestyle.

I have private cover because I can afford it. Hardly anybody on my team has private cover. When I say you start picking or choosing, you can't offset choices. I have a relatively healthy lifestyle, but I also drive a lot, something which is a major cause of death. I go to the gym often, something which is a major cause of injury, sometimes catastrophic. I scuba dive, something that can go badly, badly wrong. I play american football, something which permanently paralyses a lot of people every year. I have a job that is traditionally high stress, which can lead to blood pressure and mental problems. I don't drink often, but when I do, it tends to be a lot. I live in a city, rather than the countryside, and breath lower quality air. The other day I was hanging out of a tree, about 30 foot up in my garden, I'd say I'm a much higher risk than somebody who overeats.

The second part of your quote is just and the sort of thing that makes me think you're just on the wind up.

garethom wrote:The second part of your quote is just and the sort of thing that makes me think you're just on the wind up.

It's easily searchable;

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/wo ... bias_x.htm

Obese workers who are paid $1.25 less an hour over a 40-year career wind up with $100,000 less before taxes, says co-author William Ford, an economics professor at Middle Tennessee State University and a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

"It's very clear that significantly overweight people are paying a huge price," he says.

Obese workers overall suffered a wage penalty in the range of 1.4% to 4.5%. The penalty for obese women ranged from 2.3% to 6.2% vs. a range of 0.7% to 2.6% for men.

And we already know they are unhealthy otherwise they wouldn't be fat.

inB4 that's America...fat people are the same everywhere.

Underweight poor people should be pay a higher rate of national insurance because poor people typically are less healthy and can't afford private healthcare.

Genevieve wrote:

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?

You body burns it off (most of the time) if you live a normal lifestyle. There is nothing remaining if the food you have chosen is made intelligently. E.g you can eat a simple carb, say a potato, or a complex carb like a sweet potato. The first thing will be that it will not enter you bloodstream that fast, and in turn it will take long and keep you going. But by the end of the day (s) the engery will have releases and you'll need more food.

It's only when you do dumb stuff. Like eat 3500 calories of junk food or even healthy food for that matter, and then sit infornt of the computer 12 hours a day, then sleep 12. You don't need to know much about human biology to anticipate what happens to said individual.

I can't bleive that in 2014 (!) people still believe in calories in vs carioies out. When my kids look at our generation and consider some of the top class bullshit that is spread thought doctors, advertisement, so called dr's or nutritionist etc as the true of the matter. hearsay evidence, inadmissible evidence all of it.

garethom wrote:

wub wrote:

garethom wrote: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.

Yes but you have private cover and a healthy lifestyle. So you're offsetting your choices.

Fat people have neither of these. They statistically earn less so can't afford private cover, and have an unhealthy lifestyle.

I have private cover because I can afford it. Hardly anybody on my team has private cover. When I say you start picking or choosing, you can't offset choices. I have a relatively healthy lifestyle, but I also drive a lot, something which is a major cause of death. I go to the gym often, something which is a major cause of injury, sometimes catastrophic. I scuba dive, something that can go badly, badly wrong. I play american football, something which permanently paralyses a lot of people every year. I have a job that is traditionally high stress, which can lead to blood pressure and mental problems. I don't drink often, but when I do, it tends to be a lot. I live in a city, rather than the countryside, and breath lower quality air. The other day I was hanging out of a tree, about 30 foot up in my garden, I'd say I'm a much higher risk than somebody who overeats.

The second part of your quote is just and the sort of thing that makes me think you're just on the wind up.

hahaa what a post

Forgot to mention that when I was hanging out of the tree, I had a pair of garden shears on a rope.

garethom wrote:

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.

Yeah I was half joking, but at the same time its not completely a bad idea. Should a fat person get continuous public health care when they have no intention of changing their ways and actively make themselves worse and more and more reliant? Its like an alcoholic who has a liver transplant then continues to drink, should they be entitled to another? I don't think so.. unless its private. Your driving example would be okay if the same people get in numerous crashes year in year out and require constant health care based on their own erratic decisions. Should a drink driver constantly crashing every month and breaking bones get health care? Based on my previous points I'd say probably not. As for your sports one, again same with the driving.. if the same people were getting broken bones every month and required constant health care then no why should they get continuous help? But that's not the case and most professional sports have private health case.

Not saying its a great idea, I was kinda joking about it after all..but to constantly give free health care to a person who clearly has no intention of helping themselves, I don't see the point.. whether that means you're 60 stone and require the side of your house being removed to get you in a reinforced ambulance or a drug/drink addict whos gone through their 2nd organ transplant. Fuck 'em, pay for it yourself.

But yeah implementing such a system would be pretty hard.

Muncey wrote:

garethom wrote:

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.

Yeah I was half joking, but at the same time its not completely a bad idea. Should a fat person get continuous public health care when they have no intention of changing their ways and actively make themselves worse and more and more reliant? Its like an alcoholic who has a liver transplant then continues to drink, should they be entitled to another? I don't think so.. unless its private. Your driving example would be okay if the same people get in numerous crashes year in year out and require constant health care based on their own erratic decisions. Should a drink driver constantly crashing every month and breaking bones get health care? Based on my previous points I'd say probably not. As for your sports one, again same with the driving.. if the same people were getting broken bones every month and required constant health care then no why should they get continuous help? But that's not the case and most professional sports have private health case.

Not saying its a great idea, I was kinda joking about after all..but to constantly give free health care to a person who clearly has no intention of helping themselves, I don't see the point.. whether that means you're 60 stone and require the side of your house being removed to get you in a reinforced ambulance or a drug/drink addict whos gone through their 2nd organ transplant. Fuck 'em, pay for it yourself.

Just to clear it up, my opinion is that it's fairer, easier and most importantly, cheaper to keep everybody on a flat rate of health care insurance, I can defo see the reasons for it. My point is that near enough everybody does something that comes with a high risk of medical costs, and you'd only be picking at one area by saying overweight people don't get this care anymore. Do that, and you open up a lot of other stuff to be picked at.

Also, if anything, they're the people that need the help. Easy to say that they aren't trying to help themselves, but I think when you're 40 odd stone, you're past the point of just getting up and going for a jog to run it off. I think people in here are making the mistake of believing that obese people are in and out of hospital every day and that none of them ever want to change. Some of them are just waiting for that kick, or the info from a professional dietician who can help them drop a load of weight, not like they're just trying to keep it off in the first place, which is a lot easier. People make their mistakes.

Meh, gone on long enough on this, and this being snh, nobody is gonna change their opinion either way haha.

garethom wrote:Forgot to mention that when I was hanging out of the tree, I had a pair of garden shears on a rope.

You're living a too risky life. Driving a car is super dangerous too. But then take a bike no? Well bikers get run over all the time. Take public transport then? Well, either it's on strike, danger from terrorist or dirty people on there. What about walking? Well drunk drivers often kill normal people due to their recklessness, plus like you said, the city air is dirty. So I conclude, move planet.

Workers that spend more time outside should have to pay an increased rate due to higher exposure to the sun, and thus higher risk of skin cancer.

Unsurprisingly, this thread has degenerated into rhetological fallacies

Sticks to my original point that you can start pointing fingers at a whole lot of people and demanding they pay higher rates of national insurance or be refused treatment based on lifestyle choices.

Nah I agree with everything you've said and it was a bit of a joke suggestion for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

But in the example of a 40 stone person, you'd help them way before that size.. they'd get help to try change their lives around, diet, fitness and mentally as well. But if say they're 25 stone at that point, you give them all this help.. they have no intention of changing then bang 40 stone and require lifetime health care. Honestly think fuck em. Plus once you're bed ridden your family will bring you shit food, you think they would if it was those people having to work overtime to pay for your health bills? Not a chance.

Just think there should be some limit to helping people who don't want to help themselves. Its hardly a deterrent to purposely destroying yourself knowing people will constantly give you a helping hand.

Yeah, I get you man, like I say, people make mistakes that get them into shit situations, and I suspect if you've got to that shit a situation then you probably aren't so bothered about getting help anyway.

Yeah I suppose people in that state wouldn't really be motivated to change just because theres no free health care available to them. I guess its better to help those who genuinely do want and need help at the expense of also helping a few stnuc who just can't be arsed.

is frying in olive oil bad for you?

i thought dat was a myth

shit

whats the best oil for frying?

Olive oil is the best, and the tastiest imo.

yeah i just googled...

its smoking point is like 370-400 which is what you want

Agent 47 wrote:is frying in olive oil bad for you?

i thought dat was a myth

shit

whats the best oil for frying?

It's best to get olive oil with omega 3, cold pressed/+filter. Don't use for cooking tho, just put some on top. Olive oil oxidation is pretty low, so as sure it it goes next to heat the process starts. Use butter/ghee/cocount oil/ lard. In moderation. They are all saturated fat are their highest.

Perhaps if its only in the fan for a few mins with low heat i guess the world will not stop turning.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SoP7u0HNsxw/S ... g-oils.JPG

Cocunt oil sits as the king. Alreadt 95% saturated fat.