Slashdot Mirror
Fat People Cause Global Warming, Higher Food Prices
Stating the obvious: "Two scientists write that obese people are disproportionately responsible for high food prices and greenhouse gas emissions because they consume 18% more food energy due to their greater body mass -- and require increased quantities of fuel to transport themselves and the food they eat. 'Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food,' write the authors, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts of the evocatively named London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine."
Seems logical that obese people are disproportionately using up some resources. In the same way that professional racers are disproportionately using up carbon based fuels. I have seen really fat person it, and as a fatty myself, some scare me. But back to the story, seems like a logical corolation to me, very few obese people are fat and not eating much food.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I agree with you. I've got a large build with a low body fat. Viking build I guess, anyways I fit into 36 inch pants comfortably. I'm 6 foot 2 and my weight is still down 25 lbs from high school body building days leaving me at 245 lbs. I'm considered obese in the eyes of the insurance companies even though I have a six pack for muscle. I have to go through this long ass appeal process and physical in order to prove how lean I am every year.
I am a fat man. I weight 370 pounds. (However, I am 6" 6' tall, but I'm still fat.) Now, this article does state that there are other factors. It names the skinny guy with the high metabolism on the 100 mile bike ride, but there is one factor (among many) that it doesn't consider. I live in a small apartment and drive a Honda Civic that gets 25MPG or better, even around town. (It gets 33 - 35MPG on the highway. All these fuel consumption figures are real measured figures that I've taken.) Lets look at my overall carbon output compared to the little 90 pound skinny woman driving her Chevy Suburban aggressively on her way home to her massive suburban McMansion, while talking on her cell phone no less. What's her carbon impact versus mine? How much more oil does it take to propel her massive SUV, especially when she's stomping on the gas with that big V8, then it does to propel my little 4 cylinder Civic? How much more oil does it take to heat and cool her massive house than my little apartment? I'd bet that we come out about the same, or that she might even end up producing more carbon than I do. There are so many factors that this article doesn't consider. All it really seems to do is give people an escape goat for global warming. Yes its all OK now, we can blame it on the fat people!
... what about all the trim, muscular, athletic people? Think about it. If some guy runs, bikes, or goes to the gym a hour per day and lifts weights, isn't he eating more food, burning a lot more calories, and exhaling a lot more CO2 than a lazy s.o.b. sitting on his couch in a semi-vegetative state?
When you see a really obese person, don't think of them as 'fat'. Think of them as mobile carbon sequestration units.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
the study itself has some serious flaws.
When I'm training for a triathlon, I eat twice as much as anyone else I know. Added to that, the food I eat is more labor intensive than junk food, fresh organic stuff uses more resources per calorie than McDonald's and Hostess. A society of athletes would consume more food/resources than the couch potato society. Although there would be far fewer cars and many more bicycles.
We are all just people.
Another measure they use it to see if your waist is less than half of your height. If it is, then you are fine. If it is more than half your height, you are too fat.
And do you know the current eating habits of any of those oinkers?
I get a good idea when I'm stuck behind one at the supermarket checkout.
You know, if "diet and exercise" had to pass the usual FDA tests before it could be prescribed as a treatment for obesity, it would fail to be approved due to lack of efficacy because it only works about five percent of the time.
Not that I agree 100% with the article (I agree partially, but in a limited, and less sensationalized way), but you kinda missed, and proved, their point. It's not transporting your weight that they refer to in fuel savings, but the transport of the extra food you would have eaten, and you say you spend less on food by not buying certain things, which means that those things don't need to be transported, etc. It makes a more obvious difference if you think of it in terms of how much less a specific store would need per shipment, or how many fewer shipments they would require if hundreds of people stopped drinking soda, or consumed less in general, or whatever. Then imagine that nationwide. It would definitely make a difference.
Basically, there is a significant translation between over eating (Regardless of how heavy you are. You may have a fast metabolism an just eat more than you need.) and food/fuel consumption. It's an extension of out of control consumerism, which is certainly not limited to fat people. In fact I'm pretty sure fat people (to some extent) are as much or more a result of said consumerism as they are a specific contributor.
There's recently been a big push to "eat locally" which basically refers to watching how far the food you eat travels from production to your kitchen, and trying to keep it under 100km, which would save a lot of time, money, and energy, as well as help support and sustain local farmers and other food related industries. It involves less finger pointing, but it nicely illustrates just how much can be conserved by watching where we eat, and we could be affected similarly by how much we eat.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
And BTW, WTH ever happened to personal responsibility? And don't give me that crap about hurting others. That would be true in some place where you had no choice but to go,but now the owner of the building can't even decide for himself if he wants to cater to smokers,WTF? And you can't tell me that even a dozen fattys or smokers is causing 1/10 the damage all these soccer moms are causing driving those huge SUVs that get squat to the gallon. If I want to have a cigarette or some fatty wants a donut,how about,oh,I don't know,leaving them the f*ck alone!
It isn't like EVERYONE hasn't heard about heart disease and cancer by now,if they are over 18 and choose to smoke or eat,let them be adults and do it. Of course,then we might actually have to cut spending,which would make both parties choke on their earmarks. It is a shame that Ron Paul or a Barry Goldwater type conservative doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in this country,because then we might actually be treated as adults instead of having Nanny government trying to treat us all like we were too stupid to wipe our own noses! And I apologize if I came off a little ranty,but this kind of crap just really p*sses me off. But that is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Clutch your bag of cane sugar tightly, my friend. For last week I saw the next wave approaching on a powdered juice mix container:
Crystallized HFCS
So there you have it: absolutely nothing the mighty cane can do can be done for cheaper, and at a higher cost for your health, than HFCS. Yuck.
In that blog post, I suggested some follow-up research:
I guess it takes a while to get the grants...
As a society we have recognized that providing a safe working environment is in the bests interests of everyone. To accomplish this, there are numerous work and public safety standards mandated by the government that all appropriately licensed "private establishments" must follow. This includes the careful handling, or elimination, of harmful substances in the workplace.
Second hand smoke, a proven carcinogen, is yet another harmful substance that is now finally being regulated.
That's right: ban it. Maybe it's time for government intervention. I am slightly overweight myself and I hate it. Flabby fat is so unattractive and also bad for your heart, causes diabetes etc. I have no idea how to go about losing weight, but I have at least started doing something about it: 1) NO bread, very little pasta and NO French fries. 2) I bicycle to work every day excerpt if it's much too cold or if there there is a heavy rain. That's a start, but not nearly enough. The next step, I think, is to learn about how to live a healthy life. If you live in the west, have a car and a comfortable life, you are liable to become fat, complacent and lazy, and it's time to break that habit.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Smoking is a enjoyable and relaxing habit. I have been a smoker for a few years now. I'm doing ok with it, and non-smokers don't really bother me.
...
In my home country, smoking is allowed in most public places, and it's great. Feel free to avoid smoke in the comfort of your home, or your car, or even by changing the sides on the walkways. But you have to be pretty arrogant and selfish to think you have any right to tell someone where he may light a fire and smoke.
Smoking should not be a requirement and non-smoking should not be subject to additional taxes.
And so on. I'm not trying to turn it into a mockery. What I wanted to illustrate is that the same argument works in reverse just as well. How does one group have the right to tell the other group how and where to be? It is possible to avoid smoke if you don't want to be subjected to it, just as much as it is possible to avoid subjecting people to smoke if they don't want it near them. And no, neither is "easier", neither for the non-smokers to avoid smoke nor for the smokers to avoid subjecting non-smokers to it. Just as easy as saying "just smoke at home and in your car but not in public" can be turned around as "just don't smoke in your home and car and allow the smokers to do it in public". Any argument works for both groups.
It's a matter of tolerance, for crying out loud. I'm a smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, because people want to eat there, and I do understand that people want to enjoy their meal without the flavor of tobacco. It's a place where your nose and tongue goes to work, and stale smoke can definitly ruin that experience. I don't smoke on public transportation, because it's near impossible to avoid blowing smoke into someone else's face, and that is just outright rude.
It's a matter of consideration.
I do enjoy a cigarette or a cigar with my beer and cognac. At night, in a bar, with a few friends, preferably in a quiet area where you can have a fruitful (or boozefilled, depending on circumstances, friends and topic) conversation. Most bars here offer a smoker and non-smoker area, so you don't have to sit in my quiet corner where I enjoy watching the patrons through the swirls of smoke.
Consideration and tolerance are nothing that can be enforced, though. It has to be something coming from yourself. If you are forced to tolerate something, it becomes something you endure rather than tolerate it. And you start to hate it. And the whole matter is now filled with so much hate that either group, smokers and antismokers, literally enjoys seeing anything happening that pisses the other group off, whether they gain anything out of it or not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As I said, processed food is going to be a problem because it tends to be full of crap you wouldn't put in food yourself... including sweeteners like corn syrup. Take a look at a jar of average pasta sauce sometime - no recipe ever calls for corn syrup, yet it tends to be Prego or Ragu's main ingredient.
:)
In this case, both cake and salad were made by my crazy vegetarian organic friend - I'd stake my life on there being no corn syrup
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Damn, it's not just me who thinks his metabolism started slowing down at thirty? :P Like I said, where I live promotes a certain built-in exercise necessity, but it's not as easy as it used to be to lose weight, so I exercise. That, and Japan's large at McDonald's is the small size in America, which helps. What can I say? I like it.
Thanks for the kudos. I sincerely wish everyone the best in overcoming this current cultural sickness, but it doesn't help if we don't call a spade a spade.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
It would be fantastic if a few companies (Coca-Cola, for example) who regularly use HFCS in their products could be convinced to start a "premium" line that uses real sugar. They would have to charge a little more due to the bullshit sugar tariffs, but they could also advertise better taste and better health.
Get enough companies to do this, and they could run ads saying, "Hey, you know that Coke Premium that tastes a little better than regular Coke? The only reason it's more expensive is because we have to pay sugar tariffs. We have to pay those because the US gov't decided that the income of corn-growing farmers is more important than your health. If you want cheaper Coke Premium and a whole range of healthier foods using natural sugar instead of HFCS, go to www.fuckHFCS.com to see how you can help make your gov't work for you again."
There could be something obvious I'm missing, but it looks like a win-win situation. The people are happy because their food tastes better, the companies involved are happy because they'll see increased revenues due to better-tasting food plus a ton of goodwill that they are perceived as looking out for the consumer.
Your brain is not a computer.
About muscular people tipping the scale, I don't know about your city, but I don't see too many 6-packs running around in mine. So even if your argument is somewhat valid, it hardly justifies anything. For "standard build" people, BMI is pretty spot on. At 5'7", I would need to weight 190 lbs to be considered obese. That's not obese, that's just plain morbid.
Anyway, there are specialised BMI. See it for yourself if you really have an athletic build:
http://www.askdocweb.com/bmi4lean.html
Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
About this time last year, I had some homemade root beer, made with sugar. I was the BEST soda I ever had. Since then, I've found Jones. Never knew what I was missing. I'll never drink HFCS sweetened soda again.
Jones also offer sugar free soda with sucralose (Splenda) instead of aspartame (Nutrasweet). Taste much better than the major brand diet sodas.
I've heard that Hansens offers soda made with sugar, but haven't seen it myself. Try a sugar sweetened soda. I think you'll like it.
If you're prone to conspiracy theories, google Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in the engineering of HFCS and aspartame. Combine that with his comments about "Transformation" along with his "Leo Strauss" world-view and you've got a doozy.
Have the neocons poisoned America? Have they made us fat, lazy, and complacent, so they could take over the country, and then proceed to take over other countries?[/rant]
...so, you're a waffle man!
Actually, the bread it produces is absolutely delicious, when given decent wholemeal flour and some malty bits and cracked grains. Add some nice lightly salted butter and home-made marmalade from proper seville oranges,cane sugar and a drop of lemon juice to set, follow with a decent filter coffee and a fag and I feel pretty damn bulletproof. Admittedly you can't actually move anywhere for 30-40 mins afterwards, but you can use that time to smile benevolently at the world and remind yourself how nice it is to be alive, sometimes.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe